Conference yukon::christian_v7

> We used this method before our last child with deadly accuracy.
    
    Sounds more like "life"-ly accuracy.
    
    Mark L (whose first son was the result of the same method -- where will
            the similarities end?  Hmm...number 5 is on the way for us. 
            Watch out, Mark :-)  )

>    Mark L (whose first son was the result of the same method -- where will
>            the similarities end?  Hmm...number 5 is on the way for us. 
>            Watch out, Mark :-)  )

One of us will have to be a very good healer for number 5, Markel.  :-)

      <<< Note 16.38 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

>You are correct - IF the statistic was BASED ON 3 DAYS.
>
>BUT the statistic for condom effectiveness is based on condom use and
>NOT fertility period.  We only SEE the failure of a condom by evidence
>of a pregnancy.  

Hmmmmm. The job of a condom is to prevent sperm from entering the woman's
body. A side effect is lowering the chances of getting pregnant. Do they
get the 98% from data where pregnancy occurs, or where their is leakage in
the condom? 

I took a human sexuality class in college, and I still have the book. I
should check in there and see if I can find something about this.

>The point is the makers of condoms and medical agencies claim the condom to
>be 98% effective for preventing pregnancy.  2% of those who use condoms
>regularly result in a pregnancy.  Pregnancy can only result in a woman
>in roughly 10% of the time (3 days of the month) under any circumstances.
>Condom statistics can only be measured during the fertile period even
>though the condom is used (unnecessarily) during the infertile period.

Yeah, I can see what you are saying... but something still doesn't click
about it. Maybe I'm just extra slow today!

>Brian Phaneuf talked about a natural family planning that helps the
>woman know when her fertile period is based on mucosal consistency 
(not
>temperature readings).  This form of planning can be as accurate or
>better when followed properly because the woman will know (not based
>on a calendar, nor temperature) when she is fertile and when she is not.
>We used this method before our last child with deadly accuracy.  When
>we conceived our last child, my wife said, "If we do it tonight, chances
>are I'll get pregnant and chances are also that it will be a boy."
>Right on both counts.

Yes, I know of this method... all too well! This is what my wife and I kinda
used (we weren't really using it, but we were aware of it when it happened.)
And now we're expecting our first child on Oct 5th...

BTW, I fail to see how your wife could say it'll be a boy! The man is the
one to decide the sex of the child. All eggs contain the female gene. It's
the sperm that carries either the male gene or female gene... (I think they
use X for male, and Y for female)...

If the sperm is male, the sex gene of the child is   XY  (boy)
If the sperm is female, the sex gene of the chile is YY  (girl)

So, how did she know? 

/Scott

    Ah, I knew exactly what Mark M. (or rather, Joy M.) meant.  (I wonder
    if we read the same book....)  There is a distinct difference between
    the male-producing and the female-producing sperm.  The "male" sperm
    are faster but "weaker" as far as surviving.  The "female" sperm are
    slower, but hardier.  Now, on that "precise" day (which coincides with
    ovulation), the mucous is at it's lowest consistency, giving the "fast"
    sperm a distinct advantage at reaching the ovum first.  However, if
    copulation occurs a couple of days earlier, it is more likely that the
    "male" sperm will not survive, and that conception will be accomplished
    by a "female" sperm.
    
    According to some experts, utilizing this "method" can be up to 90%
    accurate for conceiving a son and 80% for conceiving a daughter (due to
    the fact that there is some guesswork/foresight to knowing if you are a
    couple of days from ovulation).
    
    Mark L.

    How did your wife know it would be a boy? I thought that the male's 
    sperm determined the sex of the baby.
    Deb

> Do they
>get the 98% from data where pregnancy occurs, or where their is leakage in
>the condom? 

Let's consider how they gather the data.  If they gather it from lab
tests, they'd *STILL* have to do field tests and how would you gather
data on leakage?  Breakage, I understand.  Other failures, you can ONLY
tell by a resulting pregnancy.

>Yeah, I can see what you are saying... but something still doesn't click
>about it. Maybe I'm just extra slow today!

I'd venture to guess that we want to think that 98% effective has always meant
98% effective - for preventing pregnancies - even 98% during the fertile time.
It's like getting an additional 10% off the discounted price of 10%.
You're not getting 20% off; you're getting 11% off (10% plus 10% of 10% [1%]
equals 11%).  It goes to show how statistics can be used to con the public.

>Yes, I know of this method... all too well! This is what my wife and I kinda
>used (we weren't really using it, but we were aware of it when it happened.)
>And now we're expecting our first child on Oct 5th...

Copngratulations!

>BTW, I fail to see how your wife could say it'll be a boy! The man is the
>one to decide the sex of the child. All eggs contain the female gene. It's
>the sperm that carries either the male gene or female gene... (I think they
>use X for male, and Y for female)...
>
>If the sperm is male, the sex gene of the child is   XY  (boy)
>If the sperm is female, the sex gene of the chile is YY  (girl)
>
>So, how did she know? 

Mucosal acidity or lack of it makes an environment that is more or less
conducive to male and female sperm.  Female sperm is slightly heavier,
but stronger. (There are actually about 105 female births to 100 male
births - and mortality rate is higher in males, too).  Based on the
factors (I *think* the beginning of the fertility period of three
days leans more towards the conducivity of the male sperm having
the edge), she predicted accurately.  She also said that there is a
"chance" (as in greater probability, but not certainty) that it would
be a boy, again, based on all these factors.

More fun facts are that fully a quarter of the sperm die almost immediately
in the hostile environment of the woman.  Another quarter within the
first minute or so.  Then the mighty swim is on, guided by some stream
(a kind of scent trail) of hormones (chemicals?).  Out of millions
of sperm, only about 50 survive the swim to the egg and then ONLY 1
impregnates the egg!  Talk about odds!  And talk about miracles!
Oh, yeah, the white blood cells come to attack, too. Foreign bodies, 
you know and they take out quite a number reducing it to 50.

Mark

To analogize it:

Let's say all the sperm are joggers in a marathon.
Some joggers (let's say all male joggers) do best in cool damp weather, 
and other joggers (female joggers) do best in dry, slightly warmer weather.

Jogging abilities being about equal, come the day of the big race, if the 
weather is dry and slightly warmer, the female joggers have the edge on
the running.

That's how my wife was able to predict the *probability* of impregnantion
and gender.  All I did was set the joggers on the race.

{Blush}

Okay, I'm sorry.

Mark

    Re: 16.42
    Sorry Mark, I read 16.40 (I think it was this one) and I wnated to know
    right away- further I discovered your answer...Doing!!!
    
    Re:16.41
    Scott, it is XY for female and YY for male - I think... These are
    chromosones.
    DEB

    Re .43
    
    Deb,
    
    I think your question has been answered by now.  I should add that to
    achieve the 80-90% accuracy I mentioned, there's more than just timing
    involved -- things to further advantage or disadvantage one group or
    the other.
    
    Mark L.

I just read .42!

Will you cut out these similarities, Markel!?  People will begin to 
think we are one and the same!  ;-)

Glad to see my {our) data verified separately, though!  ;-)

MM

>    Scott, it is XY for female and YY for male - I think... These are
>    chromosones.

Close.  XY for male, XX for female.

    Perhaps the last 15 notes or so should go into a topic entitled,
    
    "Natural Family Planning"... what do you think?
    
    Nancy

	Markel is correct. 

	Markem is close, except for timing.  The days before ovulation
	are more conducive to females (ie - male producing sperm die
	off within the next couple days, so the chances of one impregnating
	the egg are low).  Best chances for a male are on the day of
	ovulation.

	Karen

    Since I'm at home working off of a 2400 baud modem, could one of the
    other moderators, please (Markem) move those notes into a topic
    entitled, [my mind is running with inappropriate topic titles at this
    moment, like, "Slime or Nothing", "Spermapolis 500"] ;-) ;-)]
    
    "Natural Family Planning", yeah that's the ticket.
    
    Nancy

Thanks, Karen.  Since I was not the one checking the mucosal viscosity,
I didn't pay much attention to anything more than instructions from
the professor (my wife).  I admit to being a willing participant in this
experiment.  All we need now is references to the books that
tell how, why, and when about this and we're set for Natural
Family Planning.

Okay, Nance, twist my arm, I'll start a new topic.

MM

    WWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRReeeennnnnch
    
    How did that feel?
    
    

Move completed.  Continue.

Mark Metcalfe
Christian Co-Mod

    re .13 
    
>	Markel is correct. 
>
>	Markem is close, except for timing.
    
    Markem's comments regarding acidity are also correct.  One of the
    "additional" steps to tip the balance in favor of a boy is to reduce
    the acidity of the environment.  Another step is to shorten the trip
    (and thus the time in a potentially hostile environment) as much as
    possible.  Please, don't ask for details.  It's all in a book called
    somthing like "You Can [or, How To] Choose Your Baby's Sex".
    
    Mark(e)L
    

> Please, don't ask for details. 

Yes, please don't.  We purposely use terms such as "mucosal viscosity" to
put a more refined description on something rather personal and, well,
private.

MM

    There's family planning, and there's family planning.  These later
    notes are dealing with the latter.
    
    Mark L

Well - this is very interesting... on the day of ovulation, it's a high
chance for a boy... a few days earlier it's high chance for a girl.

doesn't help me now!  actually, I don't really care boy or girl, but I
am dying to know! I have a feeling it'll be a 50/50 chance, given the 
circumstances...

/Scott

>I have a feeling it'll be a 50/50 chance, given the 
>circumstances...

Since you don't know *when* it happened, then the only probabilities you 
have left are roughly 50-50 (or 105/100).  ;-)

Still, it will be a very joyous event!

       <<< Note 47.6 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

>(There are actually about 105 female births to 100 male
>births - and mortality rate is higher in males, too).  

One thing that always struct me funny is that, in reality, men are the 
weaker sex in the long run. Less boys are born, the male sperm is (overall) 
weaker, and we die sooner then women!

But then again - we don't have to give birth!   ;-)

Another thing of interest:  a baby will develop as a female, by default,
unless there are high levels of male hormones. There is even a condition
in which the child is insensitive to male hormones and developes as a
female... this usually isn't discovered until later in puberty. This can
cause major problems in personal identity, since the man will look exactly 
like a female from the outside, but his genes and internal organs are all 
male.

Luckly, this condition is very rare.

(I know - it doesn't have anything to do with family planning... but it
 is an interesting topic...)

/Scott

Weaker/stronger flip flops and depends a lot on what measurements are
used.  Men have, by body weight, 23% (I think that's the number) more
muscle tissue than do women.  Average height is between 5'8" and 6'
for men; 5'2" to 5'6" for women.  Both have testosterone and estrogen
but of course males have more T and less E and women are the converse.


Men and women are physiologically, chemically, emotionally
unequal (there's a provacative word these days) but neither 
is necessarily better; just different.  Does more muscle 
equal better?  Only for lifting, etc. but not for fine motor
skills.

Too much is made of the contrasts for the purpose of jockeying
for position instead of seeing the contrasts as complimentary
attributes of the sexes.

Mark

    Mark M.,
    
    One question about something you mentioned regarding the 105/100
    aspect.  I thought that there were more males born than females, but
    the infant mortality rate was higher among males, so that by age
    <mumble> the ratio evened out, until in older age, where the ratio of
    females rises above the males (within the same age bracket). 
    
    Also, I have heard some very interesting statistics that show an
    abnormally high number of male births just after a war time (when the
    number of deaths are predominantly male soldiers).
    
    Mark L.

>Too much is made of the contrasts for the purpose of jockeying
>for position instead of seeing the contrasts as complimentary
>attributes of the sexes.

That's my point... a case could be made based on a small amount of
data for either men or women being the weaker sex. You can make a
case for anything, providing you use only the data that supports your
position!

Of course, the great thing is that we are different and compliment 
each other, when looking at the big picture...

/Scott

>    One question about something you mentioned regarding the 105/100
>    aspect.  I thought that there were more males born than females, but
>    the infant mortality rate was higher among males, so that by age
>    <mumble> the ratio evened out, until in older age, where the ratio of
>    females rises above the males (within the same age bracket). 
 
Ah, I think you are correct, Mark L.  Interesting tidbits for bit heads.

Never heard about the post-war stuff though.

>You can make a case for anything, providing you use only the data that 
>supports your position!

Exactly the point about condom effectiveness (see note 16.38 and before)!
So we've come full circle!  :-)

MM

    May I speak from the position of one of the *majority*????
    
    I *like* the differences between men and women and wouldn't ��trade
    places with one of the *minority*, if given the opportunity.
    
    So there! $-}
    
    Nancy

      <<< Note 47.28 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

>>You can make a case for anything, providing you use only the data that 
>>supports your position!
>
>Exactly the point about condom effectiveness (see note 16.38 and before)!
>So we've come full circle!  :-)
>
>MM

Can you say dejavu?

I knew you could.

/Scott

    Ahem, Nancy, according to the updated "statistics" concensus, there is
    no clear majority!
    
    Mark L.

A book (which sounds similar) is also available in Australia. It's called "The 
Billings Method", and is written by one of the doctors who not so much 
developed it, as documented it.

(My brother actually suggested we (Greg/I) read/use it, as he & his wife had 
used the method successfully)

It worked.

Chele

  Reply .37 hidden.  Noters are reminded that issues pertaining to the modera-
  tion of this conference are to be directed to the moderatorship.



  The Moderators of Christian