Safety in sexual relations

Remove all ads!

Approaching that from the religious angle here. Married couples that use some form of birth control are not automatically damned. It is a matter between husband, wife and the Lord. While we are commanded to go forth, be fruitful and multiply, we still are responsible to support and care for such children as come forth. If a couple feels that they have enough children, or that another pregnancy at this time would cause excessive hardship, they can use birth control methods to reduce this action.

Complete fidelity to marriage vows all but eliminated the risk of STDs.

One other thing that has not been addressed is emotional health. Sexual relations foster powerful emotions (even those that don't share my religious beliefs can agree with me on that one). When sex is shared casually, these emotions become casualties. Does the pain of break-up, risk of stalking, or other hurt feelings constitute a real risk of psychological or emotional harm?

 

Relatively innefective is a far cry from utterly worthless - which is my point. And even saying that it's "relatively innefective" at 90% is still overreaching it a bit.

Kevlar flack jackets are only about 80% effective at stopping a bullet, but there's not a cop on earth who would forego their use or consider that "relatively innefective." Wearing a steel-plated bullet-proof vest has a higher rate of bullet absorption, but the added weight and decreased mobility make their use less desireable than kevlar.

On a personal note - let's just say I've tried it both ways, and the diafragm/birth control route is easily my preferred method. Just as effective as a condom (some experts say more so) and feels a hell of a lot better, for both partners. In my case, STD's are not a factor.

 

I'm on the same lines as Death Rabbit here. Condoms kill the mood for me when just when you're getting all hot and heavy and the romance of the first insertion is upon you there's this huge mental STOP sign. WAIT! STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING! PUT A CONDOM ON! Not the most romantic of things...

The only girls I've had sex with without a condom are those I have been in a committed relationship with.

As for a 'new' contraceptive I hear they're still perfecting the male contraceptive pill. If that's the case it'll be perfect since no man wants to have an unwanted child yet there have been times where women have claimed to be on the pill yet not been to 'bag a man'.

 

By the way, about the pill, it's not intended to be a one thing deal. It's highly recommended to use two or more methods to be absolutly sure. Pills + condoms. Condoms + Spermicide, ect. Yes, it's only 90% effective, that why you use more than one method.

Since most people start with foreplay, it's a good thing to keep the condom stash nearby so it's easily accessible. And you don't need to break off the mood to put it on. You can incorporate it into what you're doing.

 

Still, it's a disruption to the nautral flow of erotic passion. From being intimate and giving each other pleasure to fumbling with this small piece of rubber.

 

This may be a bit crude, but sometimes the subject requires bluntness.

Best birth control device: paternity testing. It's very accurate. In the state of Illinois a positive paternity test will only cost you 20% of your net income for the next 18-23 years (plus the cost of insurance and braces and other such things children need). The cost is much higher in California.

This is for the singles out there that don't want kids yet: After years in the Navy I can only shake my head and think 'damn, if you had seen what I've seen...'. For a male, ALWAYS USE A CONDOM. For women, ALWAYS REQUIRE A CONDOM and take the pill. Learn how to properly use a condom, don't allow genital regions to come in contact without a condom on. If the klutz set the thing on backwards initially -- THROW IT AWAY and get another one (even one drop will introduce sperm and any STD). You don't want to have some of the things I've seen.

The only sure-fire way to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancy is abstinence. The next most reliable is a committed, long-term relationship with religious use of birth control. Anything else if Russian Roulette.

Aside: there are those who mistakenly believe STD's are only spread via vaginal sex -- they're wrong. There are two other places you DON'T want to have sores. A friend of mine could not eat for several days after an outbreak following a sexual adventure involving oral stimulation (moral of the story: don't go down on someone unless you know that someone is clean). The other place ... I don't even want to imagine the pain.

 

Hmmm... My wife has been on the pill since we were married over three years ago, and she has never got pregnant. That's why I find the 90% figure to be a bit low. Besides, what does that percentage mean? Does it mean 90% don't get pregnant over the course of a month or a year? Or is it that 90% of the time she has sex when ovulating she won't get pregnant? The percentage without an explanation is meaningless to me.

If it's a year, I guess it's possible that we just got lucky, but if it's a month, it almost has to be low. I mean, the odds would be long to have something that fails 10% of the time and not get pregnant over the course of around 40 months. She should have got preganant about 4 times already with those odds. If it's while ovulating, well, I have no way of knowing how many times we had sex while my wife was ovulating - I don't keep track of that stuff, but it seems to me that would have to be about the same odds. Of course, none of this matters now, as my wife has just stopped taking the pill so she CAN get pregnant.

 

Well, that sounds pretty reasonable to me. I thought contraception was considered evil by God, but what you say makes good sense.

 

Aldeth: I think 90% is a bit low. I've heard it's above 99% if taken correctly. However, there are always those few who do not take the pill correctly. There is also a small percentage of women (less than 1%) for whom the pill will not work for AT ALL. For these women they may as well be taking a placebo. Granted, there are more than one variety of birth control pills and it is highly unlikely a woman will be resistant to all varieties (my sister is resistant to at least one variety, which we have nicknamed the 'Emily' brand after her daughter).

 

That makes a lot more sense. If 10% of the people don't take the pill correctly, they will say "it didn't work". They will still factor into the final tally, but when taken properly and consistently, I'd think something closer to the 99% effectiveness seems more likely.

 

That 99% figure sounds about right for the birth control pill, I mean how do you test it anyway? You ask people who are pregnant with an unwanted baby if they used the pill... most not wanting to upset their family would probably say they WERE using the pill (an outright lie) properly (or another lie). I guess they also need to put it on the packaging so that the company can't be sued for that nice 20% net household profit for the next 18-21 years if somebody falls pregnant while on their type of birth-control.

I wouldn't trust the surveys with a 10 foot barge pole as far as I could throw it... or something.

 

That's kind of what I was asking before. There are some conditions that would have to be in place, regardless of the particulars. You would have a group of people who agreed to take part in the study. They would take the product and after a certain amount of time, you would see how many of them got pregnant. You could further survey them to see which ones took it consistently and properly, and which ones did not, and look for differences there as well.

My question was more along the lines of what do we mean when we say "a certain amount of time". A woman can only get pregnant for about a one week period per month, so if this study only ran a month or two, I wouldn't put much stock in it, merely because a lot of the women wouldn't get pregnant because they didn't have sex at a time they could conceive - so pill or not pill they would not get pregnant. On the other hand, if this study was conducted over the period of a year, it is much less likely that a woman who was sexually active would not have sex during any of the times she could conceive throughout the year, so I would be more confident in the study's results.

 

HB:
The Catholic Church (and maybe a few protestant or orthodox, but not many) view contraceptives as evil. Most Protestants (and I think most Orthodox) don't have any problem with it. I'm pretty sure the Jews don't have any problem with it (though not 100%) and I don't really know about Muslims. The Bible doesn't say anything directly on the issue, and if you're going to interpret 'be fruitful and multiply' in that way, then it also comes into conflict with laws against polygamy, adultry, and just about any other sexual act that can result in pregnancy.

'Be fruitful and multiply' doesn't mean have kids at every opportunity. If I multiply myself by one (one kid), I'm 'bearing fruit' (or rather my wife is) and 'multiplying'.

 

NOG - that sounds reasonably sensible. I can understand the beliefs about casual sex and infidelity, but any bans on contraception in marriage would seem impractical to me, given the important 'bonding' role of sex that has been mentioned previously.