C&H sex discussion thread

JC 2K3 · 08-02-2009 8:46pm

Not to me.... Why would he have to do so before?

Past sex lives wouldn't exactly be on my list of things you would have assumed a couple would have talked about.

Insect Overlord · 08-02-2009 8:55pm

For any couple with a bit of common sense between them, the extent of one's partner's sexual experience should be one of the most important things discussed. I think knowing that your partner isn't putting you at risk of an STI is worth an awkward talk or two.

JC 2K3 · 08-02-2009 9:33pm

I suppose this is true, although that would be more of an issue with unprotected sex, and having your partner screened for STDs prior to having sex with them if they admit to having previously had sex with someone else, isn't exactly commonplace....

Piste · 08-02-2009 10:25pm

Yeah I'd find it odd if I was getting down to it with someone for the first time and they blurted out "so have you done this before?" Instant mood killer.

I guess it'd only come up if you're one of those couples who talks about having sex ages in advance instead of having it progress naturally.

Insect Overlord · 08-02-2009 10:37pm

Piste wrote: »

I guess it'd only come up if you're one of those couples who 1) talks about having sex ages in advance instead of 2) having it progress naturally.

It is possible to do both, believe it or not

thusspakeblixa · 08-02-2009 10:41pm

I think that having sex "progress naturally" should come second to make sure you won't have an STD tbh.

Jesus Juice · 08-02-2009 11:15pm

Tbh,some of my friends have,some havent like me and i feel no pressure to do it...I would probably only do it with someone iv been with for a good while because girls need trust to put out!!:pac: And i dont like getting with sluts tbh cause all i can think about while im with them is ''I wonder how many other lads dicks have been in her mouth''*..I pull away pretty quickly after that!!...:eek:
*

Eloquently put if i may say so myself!:D

Piste · 08-02-2009 11:17pm

An File wrote: »

It is possible to do both, believe it or not

I suppose it varies from person to person, but personally I wouldn't like a guy to say "maybe we should talk about having sex", I'd prefer for it just to happen without being planned.

thusspakeblixa · 08-02-2009 11:20pm

Piste wrote: »

I'd prefer for it just to happen without being planned.

The talking or the sex?

Piste · 08-02-2009 11:21pm

The sex!

thusspakeblixa · 08-02-2009 11:29pm

It's not like we sit down and go- "OK- next Tuesday, 8pm."
It seems pretty logical to sit down at some stage (not before sex0 and chat about it in a mature manner. If you can't talk about it you shouldn't be doing it IMO.

Piste · 08-02-2009 11:40pm

See the not before sex is the crucial bit, that's what I was talking about. I'd find it weird to be sat down and asked "do you think we should have sex?" for me that's very unnatural and forced. Afterwards is fine, but there's really not that much to talk about, just the usual "are you clean? do you want to go on the pill?" sorta questions. Doesn't need to be made into a big issue like. There's a difference between not being able to talk and not needing to talk.

thusspakeblixa · 08-02-2009 11:52pm

Piste wrote: »

See the not before sex is the crucial bit, that's what I was talking about. I'd find it weird to be sat down and asked "do you think we should have sex?" for me that's very unnatural and forced.

See I'm talking weeks, even months before sex, not minutes

Piste · 09-02-2009 12:01am

Wait, you'd talk about having sex months before? I could never do that, it would be minutes. The only pre-sex discussion I'd like to have is "wanna have sex? "yeah sure, gotta condom?"

What would you have to say months beforehand?

Nightwish · 09-02-2009 1:19am

Myself and my ex talked about sex a year before it happened. I was 16 at the time, and I wasnt ready until it happened. However we did talk about it.

Insect Overlord · 09-02-2009 1:47am

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

It's not like we sit down and go- "OK- next Tuesday, 8pm."
It seems pretty logical to sit down at some stage (not before sex0 and chat about it in a mature manner. If you can't talk about it you shouldn't be doing it IMO.

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

See I'm talking weeks, even months before sex, not minutes

This was what I meant too. Sorry if there was any confusion!

JC 2K3 · 09-02-2009 1:50am

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

I think that having sex "progress naturally" should come second to make sure you won't have an STD tbh.

I can't honestly see how a discussion about sex is going to prevent you getting an STD unless you're going to demand your partner get screened if they've ever been with anyone else... And I dunno, there might be logical reasons for this, but I just can't see anyone doing it in practice....

Also, I talking about sex and revealing your virginity are two rather separate things.

thusspakeblixa · 09-02-2009 11:10am

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I can't honestly see how a discussion about sex is going to prevent you getting an STD unless you're going to demand your partner get screened if they've ever been with anyone else.

Or- "are you a virgin?"
"Yes"
=no STD

JC 2K3 · 09-02-2009 11:37am

"Are you a virgin?"
"No"
???
Profit?

My point is basically that if you're not going to make your partner get screened for an STD if they've ever been with someone else, which I don't think many people are going to do, then what's the use in knowing if they have or not?

Fad · 09-02-2009 11:31pm

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

Or- "are you a virgin?"
"Yes"
=no STD

HPV & Herpes dont really nessecitate sex, so doesnt mean theyre clean to be fair.

oh and crabs?

tolosenc · 09-02-2009 11:57pm

I'm all for talking about it.

I was the rare 17 year old lad who pushed off the advances of his then girlfriend of 5 months. Both of us had had a few drinks... I mean:NO UNDERAGE DRINKING OCCURED, WHATSOEVER... and we went upstairs at the party for some alone time. Call me a girl, but it wasn't how I imagined my first time(that said, I was never actually going to bed Angelina Jolie, so I dunno wht I didn't do it there and then...). I told her that it was what I wanted but not how I wanted, and we discussed it and set the date of "the next few weeks". I don't regret it, and it was a far from awkward conversation. I dunno how I'd have felt having that conversation out of the blue, however...

randylonghorn · 10-02-2009 12:39am

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

Or- "are you a virgin?"
"Yes"
=no STD

In fairness, not a virgin does not automatically = STD either.

Surely "use a condom" is a good general approach ...

... for contraceptive purposes anyway;

... just in case one of you may have something you're not aware of.

Ok, not 100% safe, but certainly greatly reduced risk ... and nothing is 100% safe except putting a padlock on your zipper and throwing away the key!

Jesus Juice · 10-02-2009 12:43am

randylonghorn wrote: »

In fairness, not a virgin does not automatically = STD either.

Surely "use a condom" is a good general approach ...

... for contraceptive purposes anyway;

... just in case one of you may have something you're not aware of.

Ok, not 100% safe, but certainly greatly reduced risk ... and nothing is 100% safe except putting a padlock on your zipper and throwing away the key!

Yeah you get crabs and herpes without penetration!!....give someone oral sex who has crabs and you can get 'em in your eyebrows!!:eek:
And if you have a coldsore you can get herpes!!

Piste · 10-02-2009 2:25pm

Oh god, crabs in eyebrows...an image I did not need >.<

Thaedydal PMed me this handy link if anyone's interested: www.teensource.org

It has a load of info on contraception and STDs if you need to brush up.

Fad · 10-02-2009 2:46pm

Piste wrote: »

Oh god, crabs in eyebrows...an image I did not need >.<

Thaedydal PMed me this handy link if anyone's interested: www.teensource.org

It has a load of info on contraception and STDs if you need to brush up.

She posted it in the sex ed thread on after hours.

Its pretty good.

JC 2K3 · 10-02-2009 5:27pm

Eep.. are my eyes deceiving me or is that site advocating the withdrawal method and natural family planning as viable birth control options for sexually active teenagers?

eVeNtInE · 10-02-2009 5:39pm

This post has been deleted.

Fad · 10-02-2009 5:56pm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Eep.. are my eyes deceiving me or is that site advocating the withdrawal method and natural family planning as viable birth control options for sexually active teenagers?

Yes that would seem to be a bit odd to say the least........I take back any advocacy for that site back, well any part mentioning natural methods!

KnifeWRENCH · 10-02-2009 6:01pm

I hardly call it advocating tbh - it's just providing information about them. It isn't saying "forget condoms, natural planning is the way forward" or anything like that.

Effectiveness
Perfect user: A person that uses their method of pregnancy prevention correctly all of the time.

Typical user: A person who does not use their method of pregnancy prevention correctly.

......

With typical use, withdrawal is 73% effective.

When men don't use withdrawal the right way every time, many more women become pregnant. 73 women out of 100 will not get pregnant but 27 women will probably get pregnant in a year.

Effectiveness
Perfect user: A person that uses their method of pregnancy prevention correctly all of the time.

Typical user: A person who does not use their method of pregnancy prevention correctly.

With perfect use, these methods are 91% to 99% effective.

This means that if 100 women use NFP or FAM perfectly, as few as 1 or as many as 9 of those women may get pregnant in a year. It depends on which method they are using.

With typical use, these methods are 75% effective.

For women who don't use the methods perfectly, 25 women out of 100 may get pregnant in a year.

^ Not exactly a ringing endorsement now, is it?

Fad · 10-02-2009 6:14pm

square_igloo wrote: »

I hardly call it advocating tbh - it's just providing information about them. It isn't saying "forget condoms, natural planning is the way forward" or anything like that.

^ Not exactly a ringing endorsement now, is it?

My concern is the placement of Natural Contraception on the list, I know its not in order of effectiveness, but natural is ahead of barrier and hormonal....

KnifeWRENCH · 10-02-2009 6:45pm

Don't think that matters a damn tbh. You'd have to be incredibly stupid to just read the natural section and discredit the others because the natural one happens to come first.

I'd imagine they're ordered that way due to the availability/convenience of them. Natural you can do at home, whereas barrier and hormonal will require a trip to the shop, chemist or possibly a doctor. But any sensible teenagers will read all the descritions and realise themselves that barrier and hormonal are much more effective than natural.

Fad · 10-02-2009 6:52pm

square_igloo wrote: »

Don't think that matters a damn tbh. You'd have to be incredibly stupid to just read the natural section and discredit the others because the natural one happens to come first.

I'd imagine they're ordered that way due to the availability/convenience of them. Natural you can do at home, whereas barrier and hormonal will require a trip to the shop, chemist or possibly a doctor. But any sensible teenagers will read all the descritions and realise themselves that barrier and hormonal are much more effective than natural.

You see you're talking from you, a sensible persons perspective, remember alot of teens are asshats!

Jesus Juice · 10-02-2009 7:10pm

Fad wrote: »

You see you're talking from you, a sensible persons perspective, remember alot of teens are asshats!

WTF is an asshat??

Fad · 10-02-2009 7:31pm

Jesus Juice wrote: »

WTF is an asshat??

Properly used it means someone who has their head so stuck up their own backside it may as well be a hat.

I rather happily use it slightly out of this context and substitute something like "tool" or something with ass hat.....

Jesus Juice · 10-02-2009 7:32pm

Fad wrote: »

Properly used it means someone who has their head so stuck up their own backside it may as well be a hat.

I rather happily use it slightly out of this context and substitute something like "tool" or something with ass hat.....

Ohhhh i thought you made it up on the spot!!:rolleyes:Its a good word actually now you explain it!

JC 2K3 · 10-02-2009 9:08pm

square_igloo wrote: »

Don't think that matters a damn tbh. You'd have to be incredibly stupid to just read the natural section and discredit the others because the natural one happens to come first.

I'd imagine they're ordered that way due to the availability/convenience of them. Natural you can do at home, whereas barrier and hormonal will require a trip to the shop, chemist or possibly a doctor. But any sensible teenagers will read all the descritions and realise themselves that barrier and hormonal are much more effective than natural.

Personally, I think it should be stressed to young people just how damn stupid and dangerous relying on natural methods would be. The site is surely aimed at the average, naive teenager, who's not going to necessarily realise this. The site claims that natural methods are "safe, work well, and are very inexpensive". Now personally, I would extremely discourage the use of natural methods on any site aimed at teenagers.

Fad · 10-02-2009 9:14pm

Jesus Juice wrote: »

Ohhhh i thought you made it up on the spot!!:rolleyes:Its a good word actually now you explain it!

Sadly I cannot claim credit for its brilliance, but it is up there with Cúnt in my favourite expletives.

Toto Wolfcastle · 10-02-2009 9:18pm

'Asshat' is probably one of my favourite words, along with 'mupptard'. I even have my mother using the latter!

Censorsh!t · 10-02-2009 10:43pm

An File wrote: »

I find it strange that the guy you love only revealed his virginity to you several months after the big event.

It just never came up in conversation. And our first time was a kind of spur of the moment thing...so didn't really have time to talk of it. And as Piste said, I also think it's better when things progress naturally. Maybe i'm silly to give out so much trust in some peoples opinions, but I did.

tolosenc · 11-02-2009 12:01am

JC 2K3 wrote: »

The site claims that natural methods are "safe, work well, and are very inexpensive".

Now c'mon... How is abstinence not each of those?! ;P

Insect Overlord · 11-02-2009 2:43pm

obl wrote: »

Now c'mon... How is abstinence not each of those?! ;P

I suggested that my girlfriend and I should take up celibacy for Lent.
We both cracked up laughing

Jesus Juice · 11-02-2009 2:59pm

MySpace Pictures

Ginja Ninja · 11-02-2009 8:58pm

^^^

tell that woman who had eight kids

BUT natural does work in i think around 80% of cases as if there's no egg there's no danger c'mon piste you do biology back me up

Fad · 11-02-2009 9:16pm

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

^^^

tell that woman who had eight kids

BUT natural does work in i think around 80% of cases as if there's no egg there's no danger c'mon piste you do biology back me up

I think the actual amount of work you need to put in to figure out if your fertile or not is alot more than you'd imagine.

It has 80% success if done correctly.

Piste · 11-02-2009 10:05pm

I think it's only fair that all contraception options are covered on that site.

Piste · 11-02-2009 10:39pm

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

^^^

tell that woman who had eight kids

BUT natural does work in i think around 80% of cases as if there's no egg there's no danger c'mon piste you do biology back me up

*puts on doctor hat**

*ahem* A women's egg can only survive for 48 hours, this means that realistically there is only a 48 hour window in which a woman can get pregnant. Unfortunately, sperm can survive for up to 6 days inside a woman's body which means a woman can get pregnant if she has sex 6 days before ovulation or two days after it.

Calculating this danger period involves meticulous attention to detail: measuring body temperature each day at the same time, keeping track of the menstrual cycle and analysing cervical mucous (if it's long and stretchy then it's around the time you'll get pregnant- we were shown a video all about this last year >.<)

The length and nature of a cycle can be determined using the above methods, really this is a better method to use if you are trying to conceive (if you are we have a forum all about that too!) as it tells you when you are most likely to get pregnant. It's unwise to use this method if babies simply aren't an option as a number of factors can throw a cycle out of kilter. Stress and sudden hormonal changes can alter a woman's cycle.

So basically the natural (or "rhythm") method is effective (I don't know how effective, I have no stats but I remember in the video we were shown it had some statistic and it was surprisingly high) but not nearly as much as the pill or condoms and should not be used by anyone for whom having babies isn't an option. (or anyone under 17 cos y'know that's illegal)

*NOTE: I am not nor have I ever been a doctor, the above advice is AS FAR AS I KNOW. I do not recommend the aboce method of contraception for anyone who aboslutely does not want to have children. The above method of contraception does not protect against STDs.

Stev_o · 11-02-2009 10:46pm

Piste wrote: »

*puts on doctor hat**

*ahem* A women's egg can only survive for 48 hours, this means that realistically there is only a 48 hour window in which a woman can get pregnant. Unfortunately, sperm can survive for up to 6 days inside a woman's body which means a woman can get pregnant if she has sex 6 days before ovulation or two days after it.

Calculating this danger period involves meticulous attention to detail: measuring body temperature each day at the same time, keeping track of the menstrual cycle and analysing cervical mucous (if it's long and stretchy then it's around the time you'll get pregnant- we were shown a video all about this last year >.<)

The length and nature of a cycle can be determined using the above methods, really this is a better method to use if you are trying to conceive (if you are we have a forum all about that too!) as it tells you when you are most likely to get pregnant. It's unwise to use this method if babies simply aren't an option as a number of factors can throw a cycle out of kilter. Stress and sudden hormonal changes can alter a woman's cycle.

So basically the natural (or "rhythm") method is effective (I don't know how effective, I have no stats but I remember in the video we were shown it had some statistic and it was surprisingly high) but not nearly as much as the pill or condoms and should not be used by anyone for whom having babies isn't an option. (or anyone under 17 cos y'know that's illegal)

*NOTE: I am not nor have I ever been a doctor, the above advice is AS FAR AS I KNOW. I do not recommend the aboce method of contraception for anyone who aboslutely does not want to have children. The above method of contraception does not protect against STDs.

Actually egg lives for just around 24 hours and sperm for just about 7 days =P

Piste · 11-02-2009 10:47pm

My biology book says 48 hours.

cautioner · 11-02-2009 10:58pm

Thou Shalt Not Question Biology Book.

12-02-2009 12:50am

cautioner wrote: »

Thou Shalt Not Question Biology Book.

Or Stephen Fry, for that matter.

C&H sex discussion thread

Comments