Wearing a Condom - Page 2

No. I give oral not only because I enjoy it but also because it just seems like a common courtesy to me, like I handshake I suppose.

As a matter of fact I can do it and not even bother having sex with whoever I'm with.

Happenned to me a couple of times. Makes you feel like you just donated 50 bucks to some charity organisation that looks out for horny women.

Well, well, well.... So, where do you live? (j/k)

ffs = for fucks sake

The 12 days fall from a few days after ovulation to menstruation. Basically, the egg released is only viable for a couple days after ovulation, but the biological factors involved aren't universal for all women, thus it requires a significant amount of self-knowledge to determine how the timeline works. Also, it's probably not the best bet for people not in a committed relationship. From a guy's perspective, you have to be pretty confident in someone else's responsibility and self-awareness for this to be a viable method.

It's actually less likely than that. If the condom prevents pregnancy 98% of the time, in order for her to get pregnant all the usual stuff has to happen that cause pregnancy. I mean, she has to be fertile (and that's only a few days a month according to Managing Your Fertility), your swimmers have to be up to the challenge, etc. Having sex once is unlikely to lead to pregnancy. If you add a condom, it's extremely unlikely.

If you had sex with a condom 100 times in a way that would normally cause pregnancy, you would have 2 pregnancies. It's a subtle but very real distinction, and it's used to cause fear by zealots (not that I think that's what you were doing).

That's a good point Mr. Jankis, the condom makes the regular chances of getting pregnant possible only 2 times out of 100 is how is should be stated. I briefly worried about this mix up when I realized I had probably had sex about 100 times, I was wrongly saying to myself "man, I'm really safely fucking on borrowed time here."

Cynic, I thought ffs might've been some kind of method for lastinga long time. Like maybe the frequency fucking system or something.

DaveB, interesting stuff you're doing there.

Jacknife, I don't doubt the good intentions of your box munching efforts. I'm talking about the chances of getting an std that way. Anyone who wants to weigh in on this subject feel free.

From what I read the chance are low of getting a STD through the mouth. Saliva kills a lot of germs. Also if you are heterosexual being circumcised can cut down on your chance of getting a std from sex. Many Std like Aids inter the male through the foreskin in intercourse.

Studies have been equivocal. However, in some studies, circumcision reduced infection rates with HIV, gonnorhea, and syphilis (but not HPV or chlamydia).

It is not entirely clear why circumcision reduces risk, although it is thought that the foreskin is easily traumatized and any open wound is a risk (even a small scratch). Also, the foreskin has Langerhans cells which are susceptible to HIV infection. The reduced risk of other infections may also help, and concurrent infection with another STD increases the risk of catching HIV. Finally, as a matter of hygeine and retention of the partner's bodily fluids in contact with the male, circumsized men can more easily clean the glans penis and allow surface drying which may kill viruses and bacteria.

Plus, a circumsized penis looks slightly less horrific than an uncircumsized penis.

*snicker* I don't know that either one is actually horrific , but, given that I am a woman of my age from a Western country, I am most accustomed to circumcised penises. (or should that be penii?)

As far as the condom thing goes, it's a little weird for me. I was married for the vast majority of my adult life, so obviously, STD's weren't an issue, and I'm on the pill.

Now that I'm single again, I find myself insisting that he wear a condom and the response I get ranges from amusement to indignity. Maybe it's an age thing.

If he's indignant then he's got a real issue.


If the appearance of your penis is actually inspiring of horror... well, that's not good regardless of circumcision status.

A mushroom looks better than an anteater. It's weird to think that when I was a baby I had foreskin, I like to pretend that I was born circumsized.

Anteater? What kind of analogy is that?

A silky anteater is kinda cute:


Regular old anteaters are a reasonably manly looking creature:

Although they still don't exactly give off a "foreskin" vibe


But even if they attacked, I don't think they'd inspire horror:

Aww! I just wanna hug it!

The cock or the anteater?

That penis looks like it's trying to escape from the clutches of a deranged Furby.

The attack of a deranged Furby, on the other hand, would be horrific.

Furby:


A Furby if it was coming from the future to attack you:


A deranged Furby:

Did anybody ever succeed in teaching one of those bastards to cuss?

I tried and tried...

What kind of world do we live in where people believe Fabfunk has extensive experience with anything besides his hand?

Actually, this is incorrect.

The percentages represent the percentage of couples that become pregant in a year while using the condom perfectly (most studies show 2-3%).

It doesn't factor in anything else. It doesn't account for when you are having sex. It doesn't account for how often. It is supposed to represent the "average" couples risk in a year of perfect condom usage.

Also, for people who either forgot every once in a while, or used it incorrectly some (or all) of the time, the failure rate is more like 15%. So yeah, make sure you know how to use a condom (i.e., putting it on all the way, leaving a resevoir, removing air from the resevoir, pulling out immediately afterwords, etc).

Normally, I would use a condom everytime, but since I've been dating my girlfriend for 2 years and she's been on BC for close to 7 years, I haven't been lately. Fucking hate the things, no matter how essential they are.

Going waaaayyy back to the top of the page: Desert Squirrel, I'm just curious about something. This was for a speech class and it was about teens. Are you in college or high school? If high school (or recently out), what kind of sex education did you have there? I'm just surprised that in your original post and the one followup I saw, STDs weren't mentioned.

My 2nd child's name, while being Madeline, was also possibly going to be 'Catastrophic Birth Control Failure'.

Pill, condom, and pulling out and coming in her eyes just weren't enough.

So yeah, married and with kids as I am, I still use the raincoats from time to time (fertile times of month, Haitian sailors, that sort of thing).

The pill, condom, and pulling out all at once didn't work? Damn. I guess you should just fuck your wife in the ass for a while.

Unless you're referring to Galveston in 1816, I don't think I want to know what "Haitian sailors" means.

Knowing that fertile crescent, she'll probably STILL give birth, to a gooey baby.

If that's the case, it will certinaly liven up the Talking Shit thread.

I suggest you bring your daughter on to the forum and let her read that post as an extra-special birthday present one of these days.

"Happy birthday, sweetie... Your existence is a terrible mistake! And I cum in your mother's eyes!!! Bye, now."

boy, i heard a lot of this in college...

it's the assumption that everyone's keeping "clean" and "healthy" partners that will do you in. how do you define "clean" and "healthy," by the way?

i was a condom queen back in the day. could put one on a guy with my mouth. got turned on by the smell of latex. ah, those were the days. and i still require the use of a condom by anyone who's not my husband.

er, well, except for this one time. *ahem*

riddle me this, men: is wearing a condom really such an awful experience?

No.

Oops... was that a big secret I was supposed to be keeping from the ladies?

...

Well me personally, I'm too paranoid not to wear a condom. With the noted exception of a blowjob I got from some blonde woman. I was too drunk to question her "I swear I don't have anything" line. Luckily she didn't and I have made damn sure I have one on me at all times.

Since whiskaz was obviously ignored:

...!!!!

hmmm?

what, you think i should have unprotected sex with men who aren't my husband? eew. gross.

I've been with my girl for about 6 months and no condom is used unless we are not home, long story short it's to cut down on the mess. of course when I was a single boy i always made sure one was used. Im not a huge fan of them but hell, if im getting laid, no way in hell im going to complain about a bit of latex

No, we think you might consider limiting yourself to just your husband.

There are these labs, where they can run these tests, and you get a piece of paper that says whether you're negative for STDs. It's a lovely process in which everyone who is sexually active should partake.

To be fair, her user text is "800-year-old succubus"...

Oh, no, of course not. Provided, of course, that you enjoy sex that's devoid of intimacy and, y'know, pleasurable sensation. If you can let those things go, then rubbers are a gay ole time.

Peronally it's not that big a deal for me. Also it beats the shit out of getting a STD that will be with me for the rest of my life; kind of hard to have an pleasurable time when your dick has fell off.

See, the association of intimacy with no condom is what I don't get. Yes, it is, I suppose, more intimate without one, but it's also much more contagious, and for hetero vaginal sex, more likely to get you pregnant. It's not that I don't want to feel intimate with my partner, I just *really* don't want to be raising a kid.

Exactly!

but I fuck virgins, so less chance of STDs.

Well I usually prefer it without (and once a blue moon I do get away with it), I don't want to be thinking about when I gotta pull out and worry about precum and what not. Paranoia seriously takes the intimacy away, so the condom allows me a better experience.

I can't wait to marry this girl though.

*shrug* monogamy isn't for everyone. IMO, communication, honesty, and consent are far more important than an artificial social construct.

yes, there are. but most people don't walk around with the latest copy of their labs in their back pocket (although i do know some who do). and even if everyone did, labs can become outdated rather quickly.

i'm just pointing out that rather than relying on appearances of "clean" and "healthy," people may want to make use of the condom. or dental dam. or finger cots. or whatever viral barrier floats your boat. hell, i've heard tell even abstinence works... sometimes.

Then why did you get married? Monogamy is simply safer than polygamy, and isn't an "artificial social construct."



I don't believe anyone here suggested that one should not use condoms, particularly if engaging in risky behavior, which is what it sounds like you're discussing. Of course, latex isn't a guarantee either, but it is certainly vastly superior to nothing.

a) marriage isn't just about sex; and
b) monogamous marriage is most certainly an artificial social construct.

I'm allergic to latex. Erik + condoms = BAD NEWS.

However, I'm with the girl I'm going to marry later this year, and we use alternate means, partly because we prefer the feeling, and also because neither one of us wants to coming into/onto lambskin. Eccch.

No, relationships aren't just about sex. Marriage isn't just about sex, but it is an artificial social construct, and the terms of the contract normally include the sexual conduct of the partners. Normally, monogamy is a facet of marriage, at least for the woman. Depending on which society has constructed the rules of the marriage, some marriages do not expect monogamy on the part of the man (who may be allowed to be polygamous or engage in sex outside of marriage). Most societies, however, include monogamy on the part of the female partner as part of the social construct that is marriage. Heterosexual partnerships can be defined in many ways and don't require religious nor civil ceremonies to delineate them.

I am curious as to why someone who seems adamant not to engage in an "artificial social construct" would want to be 'married' in a legal or religious setting when that has no real impact on your relationship and only adds an artifical social construct.

ETA: by the way, when you replied to my post you seemed to have misinterpreted it. You said "monogamy isn't for everyone" and in the next sentence implied that it was an artifical social construct. I said "monogamy" isn't a social construct. You replied "monogamous marriage [is]". Monogamy is a descriptive term for a behavior, it is in no way a social construct. Of course marriage is a societal contract, and depending on who performs it, it comes with certain agreements or expectations based on the regulating body performing the ceremony (legal or religious). That was and is my question, since most if not all legal marriages have monogamy as part of their social contract, as do most religions, why participate in a contract if you don't want to be bound by it?

i am curious as to how you've come to the conclusion that de facto monogamy on the part of the female partner is a part of the marriage construct for "most societies." the appearance of monogamy, perhaps. actual monogamy? doubtful. the wide disparity in reported rates of extramarital sexual activity in population-based studies itself begs the question.

i disagree that marriage has no "real" impact on on a relationship. the institutional consequences of marriage (both perceived benefits and drawbacks) have definite economic, structural (in terms of legal rights) and psychological impacts on the partners (which can be positive or negative). furthermore, marriage can be a symbolic, public representation of the commitment partners have to each other - regardless of what the exact contours of that commitment are.

no; that was your inference. my intent, perhaps poorly phrased, was to comment on monogamy as a component of the construct of marriage.

as we've seen, i disagree with your premise that de facto monogamy is part of the social contract of marriage. but more to the point, and to answer your question, i see no reason why the contours of an actual or implied marriage contract between consenting, informed, and equal partners should rigidly conform to any one particular model. simply put, my marriage contract doesn't include a monogamy clause, binding or otherwise.

That's a straw man argument. I'm not talking about what people do or don't do, I'm talking about the fact that the social contract includes a promise or expectation of monandry. Whether or not adultery actually occurs does not mean that the social contract does not exist. That's like suggesting that the fact that many people drive faster than the speed limit means that the speed limit does not exist.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and societies with legal systems based thereupon all expect monogamy in a marriage. This legal expectation of monogamy includes the countries with the largest populations: most of the former British colonies (Britain, USA, India, Australia, Canada, etc etc), Russia, China, Japan. I'm sure there are other groups that do the same, but I'm less familiar with them.

Certainly, a limited amount of polyandry exists, but it is relatively rare. Spontaneously occuring polygamy and monogamy are more common.


Certainly marriage can be a "symbol" of the relationship. And there are certain economic and legal aspects which may be afforded (tax breaks and the like).

However, I still argue that even though how you file your taxes may change, and you might have better legal rights if your spouse is incapacitated or dies, the act of getting married does not fundamentally change the people nor their relationship. If, for whatever reason, the people choose to treat each other differently or percieve their relationship differently because of their marriage, they are equally capable of so doing without that construct. Whatever psychological baggage the partners place on marriage are not the fault or facility of marriage itself, and would clearly be related to the partners individually.


Then it would have been helpful to me, as your audience, for the word or idea of marriage to have entered into the phrasing. Otherwise only monogamy appeared to be discussed.

Regardless of your personal arrangement, may I ask what you think legal or religious marriage does mean, then? What is the 'artificial social construct' of marriage, in your perspective?

You seem to think that it involves more than legal rights and recognition (given your comment of the psychological impact). Legally, marriage normally has specific legal obligations and therefore does rigidly conform to that model. Religiously it typically has even more obligations.


Minimum legal requirements to enter marriage
Laws regarding divorce.

Divorce laws generally reflect what the legal system constitutes as reasons to terminate a marriage, which IMHO suggest that avoiding behavior that would grant a divorce is expected within a marriage.

And, again I ask, if that model is not what you want, why would you get married?