?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Poll #577947… - Sally's Journal
September 26th, 2005
11:18 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

(115 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:September 27th, 2005 10:20 am (UTC)
(Link)
her-something-better-than-pill, surely - this whole debate started because we now have much much better and reliable contraception than the pill!

And condoms are yack and the spawn of satan, but that is another arguement and should be had another time...
From:senji
Date:September 27th, 2005 10:34 am (UTC)
(Link)
Except that if it explodes then you lose your arm! :)
[User Picture]
From:gerald_duck
Date:September 27th, 2005 12:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Some of us enjoy rubber, y'know? (-8

There's a trust issue, here. Women often seem to mutter about whether or not they can trust men to apply proper contraception, given the man has less of a stake in the consequences of accidental pregnancy. Me, I see it the other way round — if there is an accidental pregnancy, the woman ultimately gets to choose whether or not to terminate, and the man has to live with the consequences of her decision.

My having such an attitude probably typifies my complete lack of paternal instinct — I doubt I'd find it very easy to regard a cell cluster as in any sense my baby, nor even actually a newborn child. Unless that ever changes, I feel my sprogging would be really dumb.

So, anyway, I'd be most comfortable if I was sure in my own mind I couldn't accidentally get someone pregnant. If a condom alone is insufficient, I'd prefer that I took further sterilisation measures myself. Failing that, it would be a case of how much I trusted my girlfriend, I guess…
[User Picture]
From:dunkyb
Date:September 27th, 2005 02:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
yack? I don't think I know what that means.
Of course they're not perfect, but are still currently I believe, the best way of avoiding STDs without actually avoiding the sex.

They are an absolute mood killer though.
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:September 27th, 2005 03:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yack, as in yacky, as in urrgh, that's really yacky!

The best way to avoid STDs is to be monogamous, and to both get tested at clinic 1A or the equivalent before having any sex. In my experience condoms break so often that they're useless for either contraception or prevention of disease (and no, I'm not using them wrong :p)
From:ex_robhu
Date:September 27th, 2005 08:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The best way to avoid STDs is to be monogamous, and to both get tested at clinic 1A or the equivalent before having any sex.
Why will I need to get tested?
[User Picture]
From:arnhem
Date:September 27th, 2005 11:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Some STDs are not solely sexually transmitted; only (roughly) half of Hepatitis B infections are sexually transmitted (just as a "for instance").

From:ex_robhu
Date:September 28th, 2005 10:05 am (UTC)
(Link)
Ah - I did not know that.
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:September 27th, 2005 11:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
What arnhem said. As a thrush sufferer since long (13 years) before I ever had sex I know this all too well. Also, even if you know things will come back negative, your partner doesn't, and a show of solidarity and mutual commitment to sexual health is, IMO, important.
From:ex_robhu
Date:September 28th, 2005 10:10 am (UTC)
(Link)
Also, even if you know things will come back negative, your partner doesn't, and a show of solidarity and mutual commitment to sexual health is, IMO, important.
That's interesting. I'd not thought about any of this before - when I was an evangelical and getting married we were both virgins and wanted to be married and be together either way - I think as an evangelical almost the opposite would be true, by thinking that your partner should take a test it suggested that they weren't as honest about their past as they could be.

Perhaps still being tested is a good idea (although I'm not entirely sure what it would practically acheieve - well in my past anyway). There is something I still find romantic about both partners being virgins (for me at least), although I suspect those thoughts will be stripped away from me in the near future.
From:ex_robhu
Date:September 27th, 2005 08:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
And condoms are yack and the spawn of satan, but that is another arguement and should be had another time...
Why are they yack? For reasons other than those mentionned below?
[User Picture]
From:arnhem
Date:September 28th, 2005 11:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)

  • the time at which it's most suitable/practical to put them on tends to be a time at which other things are uppermost in the mind
  • the things that were uppermost in the mind may become less uppermost as one focuses on the mechanics of condom application
  • the manufacturers of condoms probably do not produce, and certainly do not advertise, a range of condoms that appropriately matches the range of sizes and (perhaps more importantly) shapes that they may need to be applied to. Finding a particular brand and type that suits you makes an enormous difference to the ease of use and lowers the probability of condom failure; but there's not much done to make the process of discovering this straightforward or unembarassing.
  • they smell
  • (apparently) they fail; worry is not an aphrodisiac


On the positive side, they're a readily available, immediately effective, reversible means of contraception that doesn't screw with peoples' body chemistry. Furthermore, their use is overt and apparent to both the participating individuals, in a way that other means of contraception aren't; sadly, people sometimes say that things are taken care of, when they aren't.

Errm, that was rather more than I was expecting to have to say on the subject 8-)
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:September 29th, 2005 07:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
Ah, that was pleasently comprehensive. (Had I been avoiding answering that? I want my LJ to be a place of free and frank debate, and believe avidly that people know very little about the range of contraception available and how it works* and this should be changed, and yet managed to get myself all embarressed about talking about sex :) It's a good job I have friends to do these things for me)

You didn't mention them as a potential cause of thrush, (even the extra hypoallergenic ones seem to be mildly triggery), or emphasise the "No, really, THEY FAIL" part as much as I would have done though :)

Stick-in-the-arm at least covers overt and apparant... I have yet to hear a case of someone implanting a hair grip into their own arm just so they can lie to their partner to get pregnant...

* This amazes me even in very intelligent and well researched geek friends, so I dread to think what the standard must be like in the general population.
[User Picture]
From:arnhem
Date:September 29th, 2005 09:08 am (UTC)
(Link)
Stick-in-the-arm at least covers overt and apparent

Yes-ish. It still requires (if there is concern about this) to be actively checked rather than being unavoidably apparent; and is not in widespread enough use to be well understood by many. And has not been available for long enough for there to be many people with used-up ones, possibly? (what _is_ the lifespan, and means of getting rid of them, out of interest?)

[User Picture]
From:gerald_duck
Date:September 30th, 2005 11:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
A hair grip?

The contraceptive implants are large and rigid, then? That seems to be a significant disadvantage.

Do they have any benefit over the pill, other than being fit-and-forget?
Powered by LiveJournal.com