I love my OH being able to come in me, especially when we come together. We have 4 kids and can't quite bring ourselfs to have the snip yet so we still have to use condoms. Or we do like the catholics...up the arse
Puppies77 wrote:
I love my OH being able to come in me, especially when we come together. We have 4 kids and can't quite bring ourselfs to have the snip yet so we still have to use condoms. Or we do like the catholics...up the arse External Media
PMSL fair play, 4 kids ah, i have issues with just 3 myself, how do you cope on summer hols :)
m3nf wrote:
Puppies77 wrote:
I love my OH being able to come in me, especially when we come together. We have 4 kids and can't quite bring ourselfs to have the snip yet so we still have to use condoms. Or we do like the catholics...up the arse External Media
PMSL fair play, 4 kids ah, i have issues with just 3 myself, how do you cope on summer hols :)
Read the good morning afternoon and evening thread.....you'll see i dont LMAO
shellyboo wrote:
Lubyanka, is the cervical ring you were talking about the NuvaRing? Or is it something different?
Something different. I've just been searching to see if I can find it, and I wasn't able to. The last time I read anything about it was at least 10 years ago so I'm sure my information is out of date. As far as I remember it was a small ring which sat up against the cervix, possibly something like the cervical cap which is a cervix-sized version of the diaphragm. I'm pretty sure it was a barrier method and not a hormonal one, but I don't remember accurately enough to say for sure. I think I remember something about it remaining in place until it dissolved naturally. Honestly, I don't remember enough about it to find it on the web, I'm sorry.
Lubyanka wrote:
shellyboo wrote:
Lubyanka, is the cervical ring you were talking about the NuvaRing? Or is it something different?
Something different. I've just been searching to see if I can find it, and I wasn't able to. The last time I read anything about it was at least 10 years ago so I'm sure my information is out of date. As far as I remember it was a small ring which sat up against the cervix, possibly something like the cervical cap which is a cervix-sized version of the diaphragm. I'm pretty sure it was a barrier method and not a hormonal one, but I don't remember accurately enough to say for sure. I think I remember something about it remaining in place until it dissolved naturally. Honestly, I don't remember enough about it to find it on the web, I'm sorry.
Not to worry, was just curious! Shall keep an eye out for it :)
There is something called a cap, another called the sponge and another is the diaphram. Not sure what others there are. Never tried my of those. Always been curious of the female condom tho it doesn't look very attractive.
The Today Sponge is brilliant. :)
I used a diaphragm for a few years and it was a messy annoyance. The diaphragm is often called a cap. There is a cervical cap which is different, it's smaller and only covers the cervix, whereas the diaphragm covers the entire area around the cervix. The female condom fits sort of like a diaphragm at one end with a long plastic sleeve coming out of the vagina on the other end.
Just out of interest, does anyone using the sponge have any experience of it not supposedly being as 'safe' as condoms (in terms of more likely to get pregnant)? I just rememebr sex ed (a long time ago!) and it was promoted more for older women for whom having kids was not wanted but not a 'disaster'. Sorry there's a lot of horrid assumptions and stereotypes in that sentence but that's what we were taught. But obviously there was a bias to condoms, condoms, condoms given age and STI risks.
I can't wait to go back to uni, potential girlfriend has the contraceptive implant, so a quick screening and then there's going to be lovely lovely natural sex :) well, natural apart from all the extra hormones in her blood, but you know what I mean :D
imeldaimelda wrote:
Just out of interest, does anyone using the sponge have any experience of it not supposedly being as 'safe' as condoms (in terms of more likely to get pregnant)? I just rememebr sex ed (a long time ago!) and it was promoted more for older women for whom having kids was not wanted but not a 'disaster'. Sorry there's a lot of horrid assumptions and stereotypes in that sentence but that's what we were taught. But obviously there was a bias to condoms, condoms, condoms given age and STI risks.
I've used the Sponge often from when I was in my early 20s without any other contraception and I've never been pregnant. I don't know how statistically viable my experience is, but that's all I got. :)
shellyboo wrote:
Ecksvie wrote:
I've got the implant, and I can't really understand why people take the pill. Fair enough if you actually have a reason why you can't have the implant or the injection or other more long term methods of contraception, but why would anyone want to use a method of contraception which is VERY much open to error and accidents? I love the freedom of just being able to leap into sex whenever and not have to worry about condoms or having to remember to take a pill every day. I'd be hopeless at that.
Because it doesn't suit everyone Ecksvie. The implant and the injection are both spectacularly high doses of hormones compared to the Oral Pill, and you can't just stop taking them if you have a bad reaction. The injection - though I didn't know it at the time - was a huge factor in my depression, not to mention it gave me chronic migraine. I didn't realise either of those things until I stopped using it; and it's only now (almost a year after I've come off it) that I can see the huge difference in my mood.
As it stands, my reaction was so severe that my doctor won't give me any sort of high-dose contraception anymore, she says the Mirena or the NuvaRing (both very low-dose delivery systems) are my only options. The NuvaRing didn't suit me, so I'm saving up to get the Mirena fitted.
That was my point though. Fair enough if you've tried such things in the past and had a bad reaction to them, but if you haven't tried them then I can't see the point in using a method of contraception where you only have to forget it one day and you're pregnant.
Lubyanka wrote:
Ecksvie wrote:
My boyfriend is actually polyamorous, meaning he believes in having more than one partner. While I'm his only partner at the moment (and have been since we started going out), there's obviously alot of trust that needs to come from me in that respect. I am very special to him (he was chasing me for six years, so I'd think so!), and we have an agreement that if there ever is anyone else, I want to know immediately. I'm his "primary" - I'll always be his number one and he's told me if ever I want him to stop then all I've got to do is give the word. In this situation, I might start to get finicky about using condoms, and if he did get another partner I'd probably stop him from having sex with her, or at least I'd demand his other partner gets an STD test. Again, this is placing an incredible amount of trust in him.
At the same time though, this could also mean I can trust him more. With most other relationships, having other partners is something that is to be covered up at all costs. In this circumstance, we can come to an agreement and make sure that everyone involved is safe.
While I agree that using condoms can prevent health issues later on if cheating does become an issue, when you meet someone you know you're going to spend the rest of your life with there has to be alot of trust there. I would always use a condom if I felt I couldn't trust my partner 200%. On the flip side of the coin, if my partner wanted to start using condoms, I'd be fine with that too, although I'd also want to address why he wants to do that, go and get tested if he wanted me to and so on.
Cheating isn't the only reason to use condoms. A person could have an STI which they don't know about, they could have an STI which has occasional flare ups which makes them infectious, or they could suffer from premature ejaculation.
I am polyamorous too, and I see no reason why trust and condoms are mutually exclusive. Why not have both? What does trust even have to do with it? And no matter whether you are his primary, secondary or quadrushiary, how does that make any difference when there are other partners involved? Personally, I have never understood why a person would take my care for my own health by using a barrier method like a condom and artificially translate that into some kind of emotional blackmail trust issue. The way I see it, it's my body, therefore it's my choice, regardless of other people.
If a person were to take my choice to use condoms and try to emotionally blackmail me with a trust issue, then I would know for sure that something was up and I'd dump him. Why should anybody have any issues if I decided to choose to use condoms?
I know things can still go wrong, he could still cheat and land me with an STD, but it's a leap of faith you have to make sometimes. While I would never do so, he also has to have the faith in me not to cheat and pass STDs onto him.
Why? Why must one make that leap of faith? Can there not be trust there and condom usage? After all, health is unrelated to trust, so why construe a connection where there is none?
I apologise if I sounded confrontational. I just felt that your post contained a lot of assumptions which I think might not all be set in stone, you know?
I've never used a condom, although my boyfriend has with his previous partners, and he tells me that using condoms takes away from the experience a little bit. I absolutely love sex, and I dont want to use anything that's gonna take away from the experience unless it's necessary.
Before we started having sex, I made my boyfriend get an STD test, which came up clean. Up until that point, I wouldnt do anything involving his penis, I wouldnt even touch it with my hands. However, when he got the all clear, I was happy to do stuff then knowing that I would be safe.
There could be trust issues in the future, he might catch something some way, perhaps the test missed something, who knows? I actually agree, using condoms is still a good idea. If not only for health issues, then to reduce the chances of me getting pregnant even further. However, I consider the chances of me getting pregnant or catching an STD from him low enough already, and I'm not going to do something to take away from my sexual experience because of what I consider paranoia. I have the implant fitted for contraception, and my boyfriend got a clean STD test. I think we've done a reasonable amount to prevent both STDs and pregnancy. We could do more, but this would involve a barrier method, and the whole idea of me getting the implant was so we didnt have to use condoms.
Having said that though, that's my whole life philosophy. I've never been able to worry about anything. I only worry when stuff actually happens and not a moment before. I dont have time for 'what ifs' all the time.
I might still get pregnant, I might still get STDs, regardless of trust. I know I might be putting my health at risk, but all signs point to the fact I'm not. I'm more inclined to follow those.
I had an iud (intra uterine device) for a year or two which worked great. Never tried implant but I prefer the idea of the coil (iud) as it's just a trip to the clinic, insert and ur done for 3-5 years :)
Ecksvie wrote:
That was my point though. Fair enough if you've tried such things in the past and had a bad reaction to them, but if you haven't tried them then I can't see the point in using a method of contraception where you only have to forget it one day and you're pregnant.
Because like I say - they are ultra, ultra high dose hormones. They stop your periods too, that puts a lot of women off. Not everyone is willing to mess around with their bodies that way, with or without trying them.
Fair enough, you don't see the point - but it seems like you think those who use the contraceptive pill are just stupid or something? Which isn't very nice, or fair. There are myriad reasons why someone mightn't want to put something into their body that they can't just STOP using IF they have a bad reaction.
Cost is another huge factor... don't forget that not all of us are lucky enough to have free healthcare. It costs almost €200 to get the implant fitted here.
shellyboo wrote:
Ecksvie wrote:
That was my point though. Fair enough if you've tried such things in the past and had a bad reaction to them, but if you haven't tried them then I can't see the point in using a method of contraception where you only have to forget it one day and you're pregnant.
Because like I say - they are ultra, ultra high dose hormones. They stop your periods too, that puts a lot of women off. Not everyone is willing to mess around with their bodies that way, with or without trying them.
Fair enough, you don't see the point - but it seems like you think those who use the contraceptive pill are just stupid or something? Which isn't very nice, or fair. There are myriad reasons why someone mightn't want to put something into their body that they can't just STOP using IF they have a bad reaction.
Cost is another huge factor... don't forget that not all of us are lucky enough to have free healthcare. It costs almost €200 to get the implant fitted here.
I'm not saying that people using the pill are stupid or anything like that, but we all make mistakes. All it takes is one mistake to get pregnant, and there's no way I'd want to use a method of contraception that was that open to error if there was another option open to me.
Obviously you can't take out the injection, but it only lasts three months, and the implant can be removed before the three years are up if the need arises.
The pill doesn't even give you periods, it just makes you bleed as a withdrawal symptom from the pill during the week you don't take it/on the placebo pills. It wasn't until the catholic church kicked up about it that you stopped taking it for a week - when it was first made it was intended to be taken every day with no breaks.
I know things are different when it's not free (although I did work it out, and the cost of having the implant in America is roughly the cost of three years worth of condoms), but in the UK contraception is free, so you can look at each method on it's pros and cons and not just it's cost.
I've actually found not having periods since having my implant is absolute heaven! I can see why some women would want to keep them though, I do miss not having a monthly indicator of not being pregnant. Still, nothing a regular pregnancy test can't fix. I think it's a small price to pay!
Ecksvie wrote:
I've never used a condom, although my boyfriend has with his previous partners, and he tells me that using condoms takes away from the experience a little bit. I absolutely love sex, and I dont want to use anything that's gonna take away from the experience unless it's necessary.
Before we started having sex, I made my boyfriend get an STD test, which came up clean. Up until that point, I wouldnt do anything involving his penis, I wouldnt even touch it with my hands. However, when he got the all clear, I was happy to do stuff then knowing that I would be safe.
[...] I actually agree, using condoms is still a good idea. If not only for health issues, then to reduce the chances of me getting pregnant even further. However, I consider the chances of me getting pregnant or catching an STD from him low enough already, and I'm not going to do something to take away from my sexual experience because of what I consider paranoia. [...]
I might still get pregnant, I might still get STDs, regardless of trust. I know I might be putting my health at risk, but all signs point to the fact I'm not. I'm more inclined to follow those.
I guess we have different value systems (there goes that pesky diversity again :p).
For the little bit better that sex is without condoms, I think my health is worth more. So if I prioritise my health over a little bit of personal pleasure, I'm unlikely to characterise that as "paranoia". But then, guys have used that line on me to try to manipulate me into not using condoms and that really sucked and I wouldn't do it.
Also, I don't know if you know this, but some STDs can take up to three months to show up in a test. So if you get a clean STD test, that only means that you were clean up until three months prior to the test. To be really sure you need STI screening every three months.
On the other hand, it's your body, your risk and your choice, so you're perfectly entitled to choose as you see fit. Just as it's my right to ponce about on here and dictate crap to people, like, um, now. :p
Mirena IUD- life changer for me!
Like Shellyboo i cannot take pills for numerous reasons and after haviing my 2 kids my Gynae agreed to it! Nearly a yr later menstruation is nothing, pmt whats that (!?) and the OH he can come where he chooses ( within my boundaries lol)! My gynae told me it had the same success/contraception rate as sterilisation! Can not possibly comment on it being fitted as I was under a general for an op in that area anyway! We both know we are clean and clear of sti's as we got checked out before trying for our kids.
I was in the opposite situation this morning. I used a condom for the first time in months. It just felt unnatural... still enjoyable! But its no where near cumming inside... specially when she clenchs as I come!
Orgasm without a condom feels stronger than orgasm with?
Physical due to greater pleasure from penis nerves due to increased sensitivity, or psychological due to knowing you're coming inside her properly?
I've worded that awfully, but I think some of the guys will know what I'm trying to say. I love the feeling, but I love the idea too. I'm not talking about the overall sexual experience, just the moment of ejaculation. For me it feels entirely different without a condom. I also think it makes me feel closer to the person, I'm sure that's psychological. Although really, most of sex is anyway...
do you think it goes back to neanderthal times, when it was more about procreation and being "the" man?? I know my OH certainly enjoys it more without a condom, but can not really explain why. Perhaps it is something in the genetic make up of the person? Or am I waffling on?