• If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sex with or without any Protection?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sex with or without any Protection?

    So, I'd like to know your gender first and please tell me if you prefer sex with or without protection. Since I didn't do either, I can't know anything about it but I'm wondering because there's so much hearsay and rumors about it that it's overwhelming me with maybe lies. Anyhow, did you do it both ways and did it feel the same to you both ways or have you got a preference for one? If the former, then why? If the later, please also elaborate your reasons. thanks for the info. I was just curious about it.
    Last edited by Naiwen; 08-23-2017, 06:09 PM.

  • #2
    Hello! I'm a female. For me, I prefer sex without a condom. It can be quite an inconvinence and sometimes can ruin the males excitement so they rush to get it on. The texture is also different, obviously. We never use to wear a condom because I was on the pill but I came off it recently due to it messing with my hormones so condom it is haha. I've realised we started having less sex and maybe I was pushing him away (at this age, getting pregnant would be my worst nightmare so I get paranoid) because first of all you have to have a condom, then you have to faff about with putting it on and it was just inconvenient so our activity decreased

    Comment


    • #3
      Male.

      I prefer sex without a condom because it feels better and I think women would also agree with me.

      I dont think orgasm is possible with a condom because its exciting for a women to get pregnant at the right time when she wants to get pregnant.

      The problem these days is not wanting to get pregnant and the problem with sexually transmitted diseases.

      Ideally we would meet our beloved partner and live happily ever after.

      Sadly thats not how it is in this world today.

      To answer your question yes bareback is better yet condoms are better if you want to reduce the risk of pregnancy and or STDs.

      I think condoms spoil the excitement and passion of making love because biologically she wants to get preggo.



      Comment


      • #4
        Male - Condoms just removes much of the feeling. you still get the pressuring sensation but that's pretty much it. And as the others refer to the time it takes to get it on even if it's just a few seconds kinda kills the mood a little.

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't like condoms. Neither does my g/f.

          Last night she was pretty lit and horny. When she's in that condition, she's prone to reminiscing. She told me she has never liked condoms. She has never liked stopping action leading to banging to put one on a dude, and she has never liked putting one on a dude. While she was in college and very sexually active, she went on the pill. It caused her to gain weight, so she dropped that route of birth control because she had a rock solid 10 hard body. She said withdrawal was her primary mode of birth control. She'd either jack off dudes on her or finish them with head. I've told her again how lucky she was. She knew it. She also loved period sex. She was always more horny on her period, and she was always horny when she wasn't. But when she was on her period she could have sex all day for days and not have to worry about becoming knocked up. She said that not one of her boyfriends complained about banging her while she was on her period.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by WaveRider View Post
            But when she was on her period she could have sex all day for days and not have to worry about becoming knocked up.
            does a period protect from diseases?
            I always heard that when you sleep with someone, you are also sleeping with every person that they've slept with

            that's a lot of risk for disease including HIV

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by amy40 View Post
              I always heard that when you sleep with someone, you are also sleeping with every person that they've slept with

              that's a lot of risk for disease including HIV
              I've heard this, but it is not true in most cases. The cells and fluids a person leaves behind are thrown off or diluted to a point of nonexistence fairly quickly. Things like viruses and bacteria are mostly killed off. Parasites are also mostly killed off. Of the people you have slept with, only a few would have parasites, viruses or bacteria that could make the leap and colonize you. So it is like sleeping with a subset of the people your partner slept with. If your partner had long time monogamous relationships and went to the doctor to take care of medical issues in a timely manner, it might be better than sleeping with a person who only slept with one person but that person was very promiscuous and didn't medically take care of themselves.

              I don't think that there is a good medical reason to only sleep with a person who was a virgin before you and has only slept with you.
              I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
              ...
              Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

              From a speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

              Comment


              • #8


                duplicate posting

                Comment


                • #9
                  jns from typing in what I've heard, an article popped up that had calculations for it
                  here's the example from article:
                  if the average number of people you’ve slept with is nine, you may have a total of 3,917,918 indirect sexual connections

                  that calculation seems very high?!




                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by amy40 View Post
                    jns from typing in what I've heard, an article popped up that had calculations for it
                    here's the example from article:
                    if the average number of people you’ve slept with is nine, you may have a total of 3,917,918 indirect sexual connections

                    that calculation seems very high?!



                    I'm sure with such calculations it would say that a person had indirect sexual connections with the entire living population of humans at this time if they slept with hundreds of people. It just isn't so. Most sexual encounters do not leave any lasting biological material. This sounds like a scare tactic.
                    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
                    ...
                    Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

                    From a speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by WaveRider View Post
                      But when she was on her period she could have sex all day for days and not have to worry about becoming knocked up.
                      Not true. We really need better sex education in this country.
                      Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster (sung by Janis Joplin)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DreamP346 View Post

                        Not true. We really need better sex education in this country.
                        WaveRider's gf was overly optimistic, but a flat "Not true" is overly cautious. If the sex is in the first two days of menstruation, there is little chance of becoming pregnant. Then again, no form of birth control is perfect, not even a total hysterectomy if a fertilized egg is implanted on the intestine (if a fertilized egg implants on the intestine, death from hemorrhaging is likely when the placenta tears the intestine when the fetus is large). So we talk about likelihoods. Sex on the second day with five day life of the sperm under quasi optimal conditions would require ovulation to take place on the seventh day, again very much not likely. Irregular periods and short cycles occur, so the risk of pregnancy goes up slightly for sex on the third day and continues to rise until the day of ovulation. How this works is that day three plus five equals eight, a day that ovulation occurs in a small number of women. I have read that sex on the day of ovulation has about a 9% chance of causing pregnancy as long as other factors don't come in to play, such as him shooting blanks or almost shooting blanks or her having medical reasons that prevent pregnancy or make it difficult (heavily scarred Fallopian tubes in my wife's case). Ovulation on the eighth day is probably a much less than 10% chance (I think that ovulating on day 8 occurs in less than 10% of women but I was not able to find a statistical table) and then having only a 9% chance of becoming pregnant during an optimal day would leave a chance of around 1% or less. For a woman who has regular periods and ovulates very near 14 days, the odds are much less than 1%. Toward the end of a seven day period, the odds are much higher on becoming pregnant, but are overall still fairly low. What is interesting is that sex two days after ovulation occurs is of low risk. Ovulation can be tracked with high certainty. Therefore, with good record keeping, sex during a period is probably not the least risk situation.
                        I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
                        ...
                        Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

                        From a speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jns View Post

                          WaveRider's gf was overly optimistic, but a flat "Not true" is overly cautious. If the sex is in the first two days of menstruation, there is little chance of becoming pregnant. .
                          I think she was talking about diseases and not the pregnancy part.
                          Having a period doesn't protect from those to happen. So I follow her lead: people in general need way much better sexual education. I have seen people saying such things about sex that my brain just melts... Things like "the condom doesn't prevents you from getting pregnant unless you take a pill" or "non-hormonal pills do not prevent against pregnancies". Yes, I heard this and it was not only once and indeed not from the same person.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jns View Post

                            WaveRider's gf was overly optimistic, but a flat "Not true" is overly cautious. If the sex is in the first two days of menstruation, there is little chance of becoming pregnant. Then again, no form of birth control is perfect, not even a total hysterectomy if a fertilized egg is implanted on the intestine (if a fertilized egg implants on the intestine, death from hemorrhaging is likely when the placenta tears the intestine when the fetus is large). So we talk about likelihoods. Sex on the second day with five day life of the sperm under quasi optimal conditions would require ovulation to take place on the seventh day, again very much not likely. Irregular periods and short cycles occur, so the risk of pregnancy goes up slightly for sex on the third day and continues to rise until the day of ovulation. How this works is that day three plus five equals eight, a day that ovulation occurs in a small number of women. I have read that sex on the day of ovulation has about a 9% chance of causing pregnancy as long as other factors don't come in to play, such as him shooting blanks or almost shooting blanks or her having medical reasons that prevent pregnancy or make it difficult (heavily scarred Fallopian tubes in my wife's case). Ovulation on the eighth day is probably a much less than 10% chance (I think that ovulating on day 8 occurs in less than 10% of women but I was not able to find a statistical table) and then having only a 9% chance of becoming pregnant during an optimal day would leave a chance of around 1% or less. For a woman who has regular periods and ovulates very near 14 days, the odds are much less than 1%. Toward the end of a seven day period, the odds are much higher on becoming pregnant, but are overall still fairly low. What is interesting is that sex two days after ovulation occurs is of low risk. Ovulation can be tracked with high certainty. Therefore, with good record keeping, sex during a period is probably not the least risk situation.
                            Before responding, let me just preface my qualifications in this area. I used to be a sex educators and have studied this area significantly both within an academic setting and on my own. While what you say is true, the chances of getting pregnant from any single sexual encounter is a matter of probability. The thing is, when we are young, the body is constantly trying to get pregnant and while certain days within the month may be lower risk days, continually engaging it that risk is like playing Russian roulette each time.

                            Your presentation of the situation does not account for too many variables, the primary being that majority of women do not have regular periods. That 28 days thing is an exception, not the norm. Women will tell you that. Additionally, sperm can live within the vagina for up to 5 days. It is true that ovulation can be tracked with high certainty, however do you know the realistic ability to do it? It requires a huge dedication, taking your vaginal temperature each day at EXACTLY the same time before your body makes any movement, meaning you can't be rolling around. It's one of those things are doesn't translate too well to real life situations.

                            The idea that you can't get pregnant during a women's period is one of the biggest misconceptions we fight with teens.
                            Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster (sung by Janis Joplin)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DreamP346 View Post

                              Before responding, let me just preface my qualifications in this area. I used to be a sex educators and have studied this area significantly both within an academic setting and on my own. While what you say is true, the chances of getting pregnant from any single sexual encounter is a matter of probability. The thing is, when we are young, the body is constantly trying to get pregnant and while certain days within the month may be lower risk days, continually engaging it that risk is like playing Russian roulette each time.

                              Your presentation of the situation does not account for too many variables, the primary being that majority of women do not have regular periods. That 28 days thing is an exception, not the norm. Women will tell you that. Additionally, sperm can live within the vagina for up to 5 days. It is true that ovulation can be tracked with high certainty, however do you know the realistic ability to do it? It requires a huge dedication, taking your vaginal temperature each day at EXACTLY the same time before your body makes any movement, meaning you can't be rolling around. It's one of those things are doesn't translate too well to real life situations.

                              The idea that you can't get pregnant during a women's period is one of the biggest misconceptions we fight with teens.
                              Hi DreamP346 , since you were a sex educator, you should be able to point me to good statistics on the percentage of women who ovulate on each day after the start of their period. A large enough study would take in irregular periods. For a woman who has irregular periods, the majority you claim (statistic basis? The women I have known intimately enough to know their period have been mostly regular with only slipping a few days early and several days more late, on occasion), the real determination is about how irregular they are. Do they ovulate on day 8 in a 22 day cycle one month and ovulate on day 21 in a 35 day cycle the next month? I think the average pattern is much less irregular than that.

                              AFAIK, it is not generally true that sperm can live in the vagina for five days. The vagina is too acidic to allow sperm to live very long except during a woman's period. The sperm needs to make its way into the uterus or the fallopian tubes to find a nurturing environment if it is going to live for five days.

                              Dedication is what makes many things possible. Being irresponsible often leads to undesired results.
                              I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
                              ...
                              Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

                              From a speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X