Does he think everything is fine just by looking at the calendar?

if you trust that today is a safe day, then best of luck.

Yeah, women are also relying on the safe days system; that's how people have been protected for years. It's calculated based on the menstrual calendar anyway.

What kind of logic is this? Can you really trust a calendar for these things? This could go as far as using horoscopes for birth control.

Look, the safe days method can be very misleading, as ovulation may not always progress with regular calculations. You can ask for an emergency contraception method at the pharmacy, but I would suggest speaking with a doctor for a definite and accurate decision.

@hatconene is actually not saying this for the first time, I hadn't thought much about it before, but this time I got uneasy. I'm not quite sure if we are relying on something right.

@kahvebitmeden no way, you are really misguiding a lot, the chance of a system like the safe day not working is very high, it's not that simple.

@meric exactly, and he speaks so definitively like that. It's best for you to consult a doctor first, don't place too much trust in the logic of flirting.

Ask this flirt where he gets such confidence from. If it’s just on the level of "I heard this," don’t take it seriously. It's kind of strange that he speaks so confidently knowing that you're feeling uneasy, in my opinion.

Have you trusted the safe days method and established a control mechanism? For example, do you use a test that actually detects ovulation days, or is it completely calendar-based? Because the math may hold up on paper, but proceeding without considering your body is risky.

There is still a long way to go according to the schedule, but nobody can always stick to the same routine. Stress, medication, illness... The body can get confused. If no system is 100%, relying heavily on this method is very risky. Ask your partner for assurance about this, after all, it affects both of your lives.

I don't think you need to ask your flirt about it; do your own research. What they call a safe day is kind of like roulette... It won't add up perfectly as long as you aren't on the same schedule every month. Also, the word "guarantee" is already nonsense in this context; such a thing doesn't exist.

There is generally this perception among those considering this method: "Everyone is doing it, there won't be a problem." But the bad part is that nobody talks about whether everyone has experienced issues or not. For example, have you had acquaintances who have successfully continued with this method for a long time? How reliable is their story?

You say that not everyone is organized, but maybe their pasta-prep is organized? Not everyone is the same after all, maybe they are really checking things out, don't just look at it as being high risk. This seems like too much pressure to me 😬

Even if it's regular, the ovulation period is not always something that can be pinpointed to exact days. The body can sometimes be thrown off by even a little stress. I was curious if it's monitored by measuring daily basal body temperature or by doing an ovulation test. Just assuming it to be regular is not enough.

Why should they even report a woman's ovulation tracking to NASA? Friends, if we need such complex methods, it means the method is inherently unreliable. Whether it's order or disorder, it's all just a tale then. Wouldn't it make more sense to find a more reliable protection option?

Maybe they're not calculating flirting with a calendar but using another method? Did you ask this directly, or is it just being discussed based on assumptions here? Sometimes everyone has their own method, but they don't share the details; perhaps they're progressing with a better system.

If flirting is progressing with a better system, then why is there talk of something like a "safe day"? It's most logical to say everything clearly and clarify things directly. Otherwise, you won't get anywhere with these "maybe that's the case" scenarios 😂

Someone following a calendar, are they tracking their body signals? This part needs to be clarified. Because simply saying "I'm organized" is not enough; for instance, do they recognize symptoms like ovulation pain, changes in discharge? If they don't care about these, then there's no point in keeping a calendar.

What would happen if we followed body signals? Do you think it gives the same signal every time? I mean, with hormonal fluctuations and external factors, relying on these symptoms isn’t exactly a "scientific" solution. Even if you detail and embellish the calendar, the fundamental risks don't change.

Okay, you're putting so much emphasis on the calendar, but is what everyone calls a calendar the same? For example, the cycle length can vary; some might calculate based on 28 days, while others use 30-31 days. Maybe the flirting system is more detailed, we don't know. Why speak so definitively?

You say we don't know which system you use for tracking ovulation, but these systems are effective to a certain extent. For example, conducting an LH test to clarify the ovulation window would be closer to certainty. Instead of just calculating based on the number of cycle days, we need to find out if there are additional checks like this.

The lH test is good and all, but it only shows right before ovulation; it doesn't say anything for after. So again, movement occurs within a certain window. Every method has its limits, and we need to use them accepting that. Expecting zero risk isn't realistic 🥲

Everyone has already accepted the limitations of the calendar method; I don’t understand this insistence on "yet we still use it". If there is a risk and it can't be eliminated, why isn't a more effective method added alongside it? If you can combine methods, why do you trust such a basic calculation?

All of this is being talked about, but the real issue is this: is flirting really intentional or is it just proceeding because someone heard "it works"? Because no matter what the method is, if the intention and the level of knowledge are mismatched, there is already a problem. I think this needs to be clarified from the start.

Okay, does flirting handle these calculations on its own or does it validate them from somewhere? For example, there are usually those who track these things with an app or something; are those data entered correctly? Or does it just say "I'm organized" and solve everything off the top of its head? We're debating this without knowing.

The thing that's being debated isn't the calendar method itself, but how consciously the flirting party uses this method, I guess. But my question is this: even if it's done consciously, does the other party trust this method? Because if there are different levels of trust between two people, then issues are bound to arise from that.

the issue here is not just the reliability of the method, but how solid the communication is. Dating relies on this method, sure, but is it clear whether the other party trusts it with the same clarity? In other words, this isn't just about "method selection"; it's about how much the risk perception of two individuals overlaps. If there's no match, the tension won't disappear regardless of the method used.

Okay, I’ll say something: dating relies on this method, fine, but if there’s a mistake due to a wrong calculation, is saying "I do it this way" enough? I mean, if things go wrong, who will bear the consequences of this trust? It seems more important to clarify these things from the start 🫠

It's impossible to completely eliminate the possibility of miscalculation, but the real issue here seems to be not discussing in advance what to do if a mistake occurs rather than the calculation error itself. In a reverse situation, will the person who chose this method take responsibility, or will they step back and say, "I trust my method"? It's essential to talk about this part from the start.

Everyone is questioning how consciously you use this flirting method, but what I'm curious about is, if you don't trust this method, why don't you veto it from the start? I mean, instead of wasting time doing a risk analysis on something you don't trust, wouldn't it be clearer to just set your own terms directly? Instead of all this verbal clutter, can you, for example, just say, "I don't want this method"?

It's easy to reject the calendar method, but the issue isn't just the method. Some people are aware of the risks, accept them, yet still choose to go down that path. So saying "I don't want that"—is that a solution, or do their risk perceptions differ entirely? Without understanding this, rejection isn't a solution either.

But if you don't fully trust this method, why are you getting into such a detailed discussion? Does it make sense to try to create a risk plan for something you don't trust in the first place? So rather than focusing on the method, it’s important to consider whether there is already common ground in a relationship that progresses with so much doubt.

If the perceptions of risk are different, there’s no need to discuss the method anyway. If you don’t have common ground, what are you planning? If one side insists on "I’m doing it this way," and you say "no," there’s no solution right from the first step. You are diverging from the start; the method details are just a distraction.

Everyone is hung up on the method or trust, but the aspect that's overlooked, in my opinion, is this: You're dealing with someone you call a "flirt" in such a critical matter. If communication isn't solid on such a delicate issue, you need to reconsider the relationship from the start. Flirting is one thing; building a long-term connection is another. Beyond trusting or not trusting this method, can you act together with this person on something so sensitive? That's the real question.

Isn't the part about "engaging with the person you call a flirt" a bit too heavy? It can be difficult for every flirt to establish a clear connection on such matters from the get-go. I mean, maybe things were progressing at a lighter pace, but then it got serious, and that's where the arguments began. Not everyone can demonstrate the same clarity right from the start.

But here's the thing: when the situation gets serious and the discussion starts, going at a slow pace is actually a disadvantage, not an advantage. Because due to this "slow pace," important issues get pushed aside. So it's not about failing to show clarity, but rather postponing serious matters from the get-go with the excuse of "we'll talk about it later" that is the problem.

So let me ask you this: Is this "slow pace" you're talking about really a wish from the other party to postpone issues, or is it that the other party does not see the "seriousness" of the situation at the same level as you? Because I think the main problem seems to be a mismatch in the prioritization of importance.

But what if you both have the same "priority order" but completely different ideas about the methods? That is, both of you take the issue seriously, but your solutions don’t match. In this case, does it make sense to clash over methods, or should you try to find another way?

If there is a method disagreement, it's important to clarify this before trying to find a middle ground: Is this a matter of "necessity" or "preference"? In other words, is there a method that is essential for one party but a flexible area for the other? Because if it's a necessity, finding a middle ground may not be possible. If it's a preference, then it is worth discussing.

Whether it's a matter of obligation or preference is a separate issue, but expecting "understanding" in such a sensitive matter creates an imbalanced situation from the start. In other words, regardless of the method or solution, if one side is always the one that has to show flexibility, is that sustainable? Rather than debating this, it seems more sensible to sit down and introspectively question it.

Expecting understanding can create an imbalanced situation, but what if neither party wants to budge for legitimate reasons? Then the issue is not just about method or prioritization, but whether the lines of both parties intersect. Constantly accommodating may not be the solution, but refusing to budge at all can also create a breaking point.

Well, both sides may have valid reasons for not wanting to bend, but doesn’t it then create a situation like this: Is there really a valid reason behind the unyielding boundaries, or is it just a concern for maintaining control? Everyone says "our obligations," but sometimes it may also stem from the feeling of losing the relationship outright without those boundaries.

It's perfectly fine not to want to yawn for valid reasons, but how constant are those "valid reasons" you mentioned? I mean, can these reasons soften over time, or do they remain fixed in your mind? Because sometimes the lines can bend; the issue is whether you create an opportunity or not.

Or in some cases, are lines and such just a story, and people might be using the label of "obligation" to justify doing what they want? I mean, they don't create opportunities in a certain matter because it doesn't suit them. What they call "unchanging" is actually just called stubbornness.

But what you call obligation may sometimes really just not be a choice. What the other party calls "unchangeable", while it may seem like stubbornness from the outside, might actually be a core issue affecting your life. That’s why saying "they're not creating opportunities because it doesn't suit them" seems like a shortcut judgment. What if it's truly not the case?

But does the fact that what we call unchangeable is indeed a major issue for that person also mean that their perspective on that issue is unchangeable? In other words, sometimes what is unchanging may not be the issue itself, but rather the way it is approached. Does something have to be defended in the same way forever, just because it is labeled as a "priority"?

What he calls unchangeable may be a main issue, sure; but does every main issue have to be necessarily tied to a timing policy? In other words, who determines that the issue cannot be resolved without a calendar requirement? I think the problem is getting stuck here with this insistence on time/schedule rather than in the solution.

Could the timetable stipulation sometimes be presented not to clarify the solution but to maintain a sense of control? In other words, while the issue could progress independently of the timetable, it might feel like it will fall apart if decisions aren't made within a specific framework. So, can't a common point of trust be found without tying the solution to time?

Sure, but sometimes setting a timeframe can be necessary to make things actually feasible. Saying "we'll figure it out" in uncertainty is one thing, but structuring and moving forward is another. How do you differentiate between control and need? 🙂

Setting up a calendar might make sense from a configuration standpoint, but we also need to question who benefits from this configuration. In other words, is the calendar really a tool for solutions, or is it a mechanism of pressure used by one side to force the other into a certain rhythm? Because there are many things imposed under the guise of "feasibility."

The schedule can sometimes be a pressure tool, but it can also provide a framework for the parties to see their responsibilities more concretely. So this depends entirely on the lens through which you view it. How do you decide whether it is "feasibility" or "imposition"?

It's easy to say "enforcing a schedule," but what if there are interconnected processes as part of a job? How will alignment occur without a timetable? If everyone moves at their own pace, won't there be conflicts? The "point of trust" sounds a bit theoretical.

Okay, but then I ask, is it possible to create a completely neutral organized system without a calendar to prevent conflicts? Doesn't a calendar that everyone adjusts to their own interests seem to prevent conflicts while creating new injustices? For example, what rhythm is your concept of "harmony" shaped by?

So, can putting a calendar be a kind of "drawing a boundary"? That is, a framework that prevents people from getting too intertwined, rather than just a tool used for adaptation? Perhaps it exists not to address "injustice", but to prevent excessive entanglement.

But if putting a schedule in place will prevent overlapping, isn't that relationship or business model problematic from the start? Drawing a framework to avoid too much entanglement seems more like avoidance than a solution. Are you bringing the relationship or the project together in a schedule, or is it about the people?

Dismantling injustice by means of a "calendar" might seem a bit easy. The problem isn’t the calendar, but how it is used. If there is an already unfair balance among people, even without a calendar, some other means will be used to create that pressure. The notion of the system's neutrality is, for this reason, somewhat of a fairy tale. Relying on that to build an organization does not sound logical at all.

No matter how neutrally a calendar or system is designed, it ultimately relies on people in its application. So how much can a calendar improve a fundamentally unbalanced relationship? The real issue is who controls it and why that need is so pronounced. The question "What would be lost if we removed the calendar?" might be more useful.

Removing the calendar generally leads to a decline in accountability. A more biased space begins. Because everyone creates a story according to their own order and behaves as if no one has committed to anything. The calendar can be poorly implemented, sure, but is having none at all better? I don't think so.

Just because we have a schedule doesn't mean we can hold someone accountable. It's not that controlling the person; it's the pre-established agreement. If someone shakes the agreement, wouldn't they shake the schedule too? 🥲

There are those who try to control others' responsibilities using the calendar. It's important to notice this.

The calendar here is just a tool. The real issue is why and how people bend and twist that tool. For example, if you've noticed someone using the calendar for manipulation, why is the relationship still carried out within that framework? Setting a calendar isn’t the solution anyway, but hiding behind it and saying "the system works" makes the problem invisible.

If you are working or establishing a relationship with someone who manipulates the calendar, what is the level of trust there? Isn't a calendar and an agreement merely formal in places where there is no trust? What really needs to be questioned is why that relationship continues in that environment.

Working or building a relationship with someone who manipulates the calendar is already problematic, okay, but there's not always a way out. Compulsory relationships, especially in the business world, are much more complex. It's not possible to burn bridges with every "insecurity." So what should we do in such situations? For instance, if there is no trust as you mentioned, isn't the calendar still useful as an insurance tool to maintain this relationship?

While trying to be such an insurance, could a calendar actually hide other problems? If there is distrust, maybe one can manage with the calendar for a while, but is this functional sustainability? I think it will lead to bigger eruptions in the long run. Even if we are under obligations, how realistic is it to try to build trust leaning on a calendar?

What is the primary function of a schedule in a relationship that continues with insecurity due to obligation? In other words, if it's not about building trust, is everything just about getting through the day? In that case, even "managing for a while" doesn't seem sustainable; it feels more like a continuous blockage. Could the real solution be to face the obligation rather than relying on a schedule?

Could the calendar obligation make things visible? I mean, instead of being about "sustainability," is it more about documenting that both parties are trapped under that obligation? That’s why when the calendar is removed, it doesn't lead to relief but rather creates greater chaos. If there is an obligation, does the calendar just become a structure that somewhat organizes this constraint?

If the schedule congestion is being organized and actually nothing is changing, who is this "organization" beneficial for? Is it a tool for the party driving the necessity, or just a decoration that masks the chaos? Because if it were truly a useful tool, wouldn’t it need to alleviate the fundamental blockage in the relationship?

Maybe what we call a calendar is not just used to make chaos invisible, but also to send a message to one side: "Look, we still take you seriously." So, it's not a genuine quest for a solution, but rather a performative "relationship activity." How sustainable is this for the side that buys into it?

So the issue is this: if the calendar is just a signal to "stall for a while," we need to look at who delivered this message and for what purpose. Is it the party wanting to be taken seriously that is holding onto this, or is it the other party using it to cover up their own insecurity? Because in such a relationship, just as one person's "consumption" can be problematic, so too can the other person's intention to present it.

We're discussing who uses the calendar and how, but let me take it a step further: If the calendar were to be canceled, what would happen to the dynamics between the parties? In other words, would the "thing" that actually exists in the relationship come to light instead of trust, or would the same situation continue in another way under the guise of chaos?

If the schedule is canceled, I believe the dynamics will surface even more confused. Because the party that withdraws will again evade the issue under the pretext of chaos, and the one using the schedule as an excuse will say, "See, everything got worse." If there is no tangible step taken for trust-building when there is no schedule, this will just devolve into chaos without any tools.

If the calendar is canceled, those who flee from the issue under the pretext of chaos will already find an excuse, that's true. But the main issue is why that calendar was held onto in a structure where nobody is willing to take action even when there is a calendar. In other words, you say there's no "tangible step" when there's no calendar; so what happens when there is a calendar? If both situations are the same, the problem isn't the calendar, it's directly in the dynamics of both sides.

Could one reason for sticking to a schedule be the fear of one party saying, "if they create more space, everything will completely fall apart"? In other words, it might function as a kind of insurance to prevent the total collapse of the current order rather than addressing the lack of trust. The real question is: how far can you go with such a fragile structure?

Doesn't what you call an effort to protect the fragile roof actually turn into a weapon that each party uses against the other by leveraging the fear of "collapse"? In other words, if one party holds on with the fear of losing while the other knowingly loosens their grip due to this fear, it means there is no trust, but rather continuous bargaining. If one side is always going to lose in this bargaining, hasn't the roof already collapsed?

So what is the reason for the constant loser in this negotiation being willing to "accept losing"? Is it really the hope for change, or is it a habit of feeling more comfortable under the roof than falling apart? Because in a dynamic where one is constantly willing to lose, can the search for a solution truly be sincere?

No one gets used to the feeling of "I lost"; there's no accepting it. It just sometimes turns into a game where everyone minimizes their own loss because there’s nothing else left to lose. What you call being stuck under the roof often stems from a fear of "it's worse out there," not hope or anything. It's important to question who triggers this fear.

The question of who triggers the fear is important, but could the constant existence of this fear actually provide some benefit to both sides? In a balance maintained by fear instead of trust, no one has to take full responsibility. In this case, is the effort to protect the roof a fully conscious partnership, or is it an unconscious cycle that has developed?

Viewing a balance sustained by fear as a "conscious partnership" seems like too organized an assumption to me. Because the sustainability of a fear-based order generally depends on the blurring of individual boundaries of the parties involved. In this blur, they miss the chance to establish a real balance as much as they do not have to take responsibility. The real question is this: Doesn't one side have to clearly say "this can’t go on like this" to break this cycle?

"Just saying 'This can't go on like this' is not enough. It's easy to say, but is there any action afterwards? If no step is taken to break that cycle, the words have no weight. The question is: who dares to be the first to step out of the wheel?

Could this be too romanticized as a matter of courage? I mean, what if stepping off the wheel is triggered not by "courage" but by a sort of necessity? Sometimes someone steps off because continuing becomes impossible. It’s less about "who will take the first step" and more about "for whom will that moment of impossibility arrive first."

Waiting for the moment of impossibility is like giving up from the start. Do we really have to reach the point of debris? Isn't it more critical for someone to see the wheel first and say, "Something is going wrong here"? It's not about necessity, but rather a matter of awareness in my opinion. 😐

Awareness is important, but it's not a solution by itself. If just seeing the wheel is enough, why do these cycles last so long? Could the inability to act despite awareness be due to some other blockage rather than a lack of awareness? 😂

Maybe it's not so easy to accept that you are a part of the wheel, rather than just seeing the wheel itself. Because seeing is one thing, taking responsibility and attempting to disrupt it is another. A person might not always be ready for such a significant confrontation with their own life. So, is the real source of the blockage avoiding seeing your own share?

The blockage may not necessarily be related to avoiding one's share. Sometimes a person sees the wheel, acknowledges their portion, but what happens when they step off the wheel is completely uncertain. The fear of uncertainty can be as heavy as the current entrapment. So, which is stronger: this fear or the desire to break the wheel?

If you say that the fear of uncertainty is strong, isn't the stuckness that continues with that fear itself a kind of uncertainty? So, staying stuck doesn't actually offer a guaranteed solution. In this case, shouldn't we focus more on the question "what happens by staying" rather than "what will happen if I leave"?

We already know what the wheel of life is, so sometimes, even if people are unaware, they actually prefer uncertainty by maintaining the wheel. Because that familiarity is a controllable chaos. So what really happens to those who break that wheel and step into uncertainty? Has anyone ever heard of a happy ending?

Searching for a happy ending is like another form of the wheel. There’s no guarantee of an exit, but seeking that guarantee becomes an excuse for not being able to escape. The question should be this: If it’s not happiness, what other value is there in breaking the wheel?

Is the value of breaking the cycle something that must be measured by a "reward" or "result"? Perhaps the issue is that within the cycle, a person forgets who they are. In other words, while that loop continues, are you the one turning the wheel, or is the wheel turning you? Sometimes even clarifying this boundary can be a step in itself.

The identity of the wheel swallowing you is an interesting point, but here's the thing: Just because the wheel is spinning you, you don't automatically become "you" when you let go of it. In that void, instead of another wheel, there could be sheer disorientation. So breaking the wheel without considering what to do afterwards also carries a risk of getting lost; in that interim, there's no identity left. Yes, it’s uncertain what will happen once you get out, but moving forward without clarifying what to hold on to *before* you exit is also a form of reckless courage.

You said to clarify something to hold on to before breaking the wheel, but is it possible to find that clarity within the wheel? Because the wheel already feeds confusion; perhaps clarity will only emerge in that emptiness. Is trying to solve everything from within actually maintaining the tightness?

You say that the search for clarity will occur outside the wheel, but you also assume that breaking the wheel will automatically create a void. What if another wheel is instantly set up in place of that one? If the void you mentioned is not directed at the moment of that rupture, could it turn into a variation of the same cycle?

I think the work of creating emptiness is overly romanticized. Those who worry about "Can a new wheel be established?" are right because people generally struggle very much with carrying that emptiness. We spin new wheels in our minds because that emptiness is not a passive thing; it requires an active choice. So even when we let go of that old wheel, we unconsciously try to reinvent it nonstop. So, is there really anyone who can endure that emptiness, or has anyone learned to endure it?

Maybe the issue isn't enduring the void, but rather how we perceive the void itself. When we hear the term "void," it usually conjures thoughts of a deficiency or a loss, as a reflection of a certain mindset. What if that void is not viewed as a lacking space, but rather as an area where you can map out new paths?

But doesn’t even emptiness want to fill itself at some point? I mean, how sustainable is that thing you call the "space to draw new routes"? Can a person continuously choose to remain in that emptiness, or does that space eventually turn into another gear after a while?

Perhaps the issue isn't the permanence of emptiness, but rather which wheel you want to get off at that moment. After all, nothing is static; every "emptiness" will try to fill itself at some point. But maybe the real question is whether it's filling up with the debris of the previous wheel, or if it's actually something entirely different.

Perhaps what we call stepping off the wheel is not about completely rejecting its existence, but rather changing our relationship with it. In other words, can that space you refer to be used not to create something entirely "new," but to make room for a different kind of connection with what already exists? Because ultimately, is it really possible to completely dismantle the wheel?

Assuming it is not possible to completely dismantle the wheel, then the issue actually lies in understanding the nature of the wheel. In other words, how much of the wheel can we separate as being "imposed" from the outside and how much as being "reproduced" from the inside? Because imagining a void independent of the habits and reflexes within a person seems a bit too mechanical to me. Perhaps the issue is not to escape the wheel, but to realize how we turn the wheel in our own minds?

I think it's a bit misleading to completely separate what comes from outside the wheel and what comes from inside. What we call the wheel is already a structure where these two layers are always intertwined, isn't it? It's hard to clearly draw a line between what is "imposed" and what is "reproduced"; because our speed at internalizing what comes from outside is incredible as humans. Therefore, it seems necessary to not only understand the nature of the wheel, but also to accept the ambiguity of these boundaries.

Instead of trying to understand the boundaries of the wheel, perhaps we should question why those boundaries have become so important. The constant mixing of the external and the internally produced can be disturbing, but maybe the real issue is who defines whether this mixture is "disturbing" or not? In other words, shouldn't we first see the source of the disturbance more clearly in order to change our relationship with the wheel?

So does the discomfort we talk about really stem from the nature of the wheel, or from the meaning we attribute to it? In other words, perhaps the issue is not the wheel itself, but our tendency to view it as a "problem" constantly. If we change that meaning, will the wheel continue to remain the same, or will it inherently transform?