Login Register Sign up for the GRM e-newsletter

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Semi-NSFW Adult Related Romance Advice « 1 2 3 »
  • Morbid

    Nov. 4, 2009 9:53 p.m. Morbid New Reader

    PHeller wrote:

    so then that's like saying as I dude I might as well except the fact that I'll have kids, even if I dont want them?

    No, that is not at all what anyone is saying. What is being said is that you need to be ok with the fact that it could happen and ready to take responsibility if it does. Don't take it out of your pants if you can't deal with the consequences.

    Besides a vasectomy, there really isn't a sure way of preventing pregnancy and still having an enjoyable sex life.

    Even with a vasectomy, the only way to completely prevent pregnancy is through abstinence or a hysterectomy. Vasectomies are not foolproof, just as tubal ligations are not fool proof.

    Is it unfair of me to "negotiate" with someone about the importance of planning pregnancy with the utmost care, while still enjoying sex?

    It is unfair if you are saying "I wear a condom for you, so you should take the pill for me", when you know she has made up her mind that she is not willing to do that for whatever reason. Negotiate is also the wrong word to use here, you want to go into a relationship with a clear idea of what you expect, and settle for nothing less. If you want her to use a female condom/sponge/film then you should stand firm on that and walk if she says no. There should be no negotiation for either partner, either you're comfortable with the situation or you aren't.

  • Salanis

    Nov. 5, 2009 12:49 a.m. Salanis UberDork

    Not to sound crass, but: you know what you call a person (male or female) that you spend a lot of time with but don't "get physical"? A friend. I hold a similar philosophy for long distance relationships.

    PHeller wrote:

    Do I avoid those girls who are opposed to contraception? Is that fair to them? Is that fair to me? Or do I just be a good boy and abstain until I know whether I could handle a kid? The latter is tempting fate in my opinion.

    Avoid? No. Avoid serious dating? Yes. This is a person with significantly different values.

    If it's not the sort of relationship you're looking for, you're not doing the other party any favors by making yourself frustrated. If you genuinely like them, be their friend and let them be free to find a person whose personality, wants, and values more closely match theirs.

    And it isn't clear if this is an "every sperm is sacred" Catholic sort of thing, or an opposition to hormonal birth control.

  • MitchellC

    Nov. 5, 2009 12:55 a.m. MitchellC HalfDork

    All I know is that not getting any is a lot better than waking up the next day thinking "oh, E36 M3."

  • 914Driver

    Nov. 5, 2009 5:43 a.m. 914Driver SuperDork

    IUDs, spongues, diaphrams, oh my.

    Unless you are her first encounter, wrap it.

    Can you say STD?

    Back to cars,

  • Jensenman

    Nov. 5, 2009 8:35 a.m. Jensenman MegaDork

    IMHO, as another poster has said if the guy isn't willing to live with the consequences then don't do it. Also, if I read the initial post correctly the girl could be simply opposed to any method of birth control (which I assume would include condoms, rhythm method, etc) and and would have no physical reason to not use birth control.

    What that tells me is that she is unwilling to compromise and the short version of that is 'control freak'.

    RUN as fast as you can in the opposite direction.

  • cwh

    Nov. 5, 2009 9:02 a.m. cwh SuperDork

    As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park "Nature finds a way". Lot of truth there. Besides self-preservation, there is no stronger human drive than preservation of the species, as in making babies. Right now, I am trying to deal with a 16yo granddaughter living with an 18yo boy. Yeah, she's supposed to be on the pill, but I know what the end result will be and it will be devastating for a lot of people. Seems like I'm the only one concerned.

  • Kia_racer

    Nov. 5, 2009 9:16 a.m. Kia_racer Reader

    Jensenman wrote:

    What that tells me is that she is unwilling to compromise and the short version of that is 'control freak'.

    src="/media/img/icons/smilies/googly-18.png" class="smiley" alt="" />

    Not really, It could be a religious thing. Down in Mexico the Government was trying to pass a birth control law because they are having problems feeding themselves. The Pope (JPII) came in and said that contraception is a sin and the Gov. lost all the backing it had gained. I know many women that will not use any form of contraception because of religious reasons. I would never try to change their mind it is their option.

  • PHeller

    Nov. 5, 2009 9:39 a.m. PHeller HalfDork

    Agh all the comments implying that I wouldn't use a rubber are getting anoying.

    So far Salanis has probably the answer I most agree with.

    If something were to get that point, and she holds firm on not wanting to do any form of contraception, I could see that becoming a "deciding factor" in whether the relationship would be further.

    Condoms are only so reliable, and after having a relationship where my girl took the pill, anything less than using both would seem risky.

  • AngryCorvair

    Nov. 5, 2009 9:48 a.m. AngryCorvair SuperDork

    914Driver wrote:

    IUDs, spongues, diaphrams, oh my.

    Unless you are her first encounter, wrap it.

    Can you say STD?

    Back to cars,

    slightly OT:

    like my dad used to say:

    you never miss a slice off a cut ham. ie if you're not first, you could be five-hundred-and-first and you'd never know the difference.

  • DILYSI Dave

    Nov. 5, 2009 9:52 a.m. DILYSI Dave UltimaDork

    Morbid wrote:

    PHeller wrote:

    so then that's like saying as I dude I might as well except the fact that I'll have kids, even if I dont want them?

    No, that is not at all what anyone is saying. What is being said is that you need to be ok with the fact that it could happen and ready to take responsibility if it does. Don't take it out of your pants if you can't deal with the consequences.

    This.

  • Duke

    Nov. 5, 2009 11:10 a.m. Duke SuperDork

    If she is opposed to any form of contraception it would be a deal killer for me, regardless of if you are willing to wrap it or not.

    Sex is about more than making babies. It's also about more than just having fun. Looking at it from only either end of the spectrum is missing the major part of the fulfillment and joy it brings to a relationship when done right.

    If she's not willing to use any form of contraception at all, she is looking at it from an end of the spectrum I would not be willing to spend my life dealing with. Therefore I wouldn't sleep with her. And I wouldn't sleep with her until I trusted her enough to know that I wasn't the 500th slice of ham, either.

    If she just doesn't want to use hormonals or implants (and I don't blame her for either), then she should look into a diaphragm. They work great within their limits when used properly, especially in conjunction with a condom. But while a condom is good insurance for both of you it shouldn't be a requirement.

    But the bottom line as most have said is that you need to have a contingency plan stronger than just trying to avoid a paternity test if one of your little Tab A's manages to make it all the way to her Slot B.

  • Jensenman

    Nov. 5, 2009 11:45 a.m. Jensenman MegaDork

    Kia_racer wrote:

    Jensenman wrote:

    What that tells me is that she is unwilling to compromise and the short version of that is 'control freak'.

    src="/media/img/icons/smilies/googly-18.png" class="smiley" alt="" />

    Not really, It could be a religious thing. Down in Mexico the Government was trying to pass a birth control law because they are having problems feeding themselves. The Pope (JPII) came in and said that contraception is a sin and the Gov. lost all the backing it had gained. I know many women that will not use any form of contraception because of religious reasons. I would never try to change their mind it is their option.

    Not trying to start a flame war, just stating my position: there are two sides to any discussion. If a girl wants eleventy hundred kids and I only want one (or vice versa), then there needs to be a compromise. If such a compromise can't be reached on a topic as viscerally important as this one is, then it's time to move on.

    The underlying motive is not the question; rather it's the profound impact on at least three lives.

  • Nov. 5, 2009 11:57 a.m. SVreX PowerDork

    PHeller wrote:

    So far Salanis has probably the answer I most agree with.

    Perhaps I misunderstood your original post.

    PHeller wrote:

    Just looking for some mature info from the best group of online buddies I've got.

    I didn't realize you were looking for someone to give you an answer you already agree with. I thought you were looking for diverse and mature inputs from a group of people who might not say exactly what you were hoping, but may perhaps broaden the depth of your perspective. I also think you got exactly that, and I'm fairly impressed with the range of respectful responses you got to a subject that could have easily gotten tremendously crude tremendously fast.

    Perhaps you should just go with Salanis, since you already agree with his answer.

  • AngryCorvair

    Nov. 5, 2009 12:58 p.m. AngryCorvair SuperDork

    SVreX wrote:

    Perhaps you should just go with Salanis, since you already agree with his answer.

    dropping it a couple levels in 3... 2... 1...

    SVreX, are you suggesting that PHeller and Salanis are gay?

  • oldsaw

    Nov. 5, 2009 1:08 p.m. oldsaw HalfDork

    AngryCorvair wrote:

    SVreX wrote:

    Perhaps you should just go with Salanis, since you already agree with his answer.

    dropping it a couple levels in 3... 2... 1...

    SVreX, are you suggesting that PHeller and Salanis are gay?

    We already know how Salanis feels about long-distance relationships. He's in Cali, Pheller's in Pa - so just friends, no benefits.

    As if it matters, anyway.

  • Snowdoggie

    Nov. 5, 2009 1:20 p.m. Snowdoggie HalfDork

    If you don't know a woman well enough to know if her opposition to contraception is for religious reasons or health reasons, you probably don't know her well enough to even be discussing it in the first place.

    Even marraige is not always enough to know or trust a person. I have a friend who fell madly in LUUUV with a woman he met online. They were married six months later. She got his house in the divorce.

  • Snowdoggie

    Nov. 5, 2009 1:29 p.m. Snowdoggie HalfDork

    MitchellC wrote:

    All I know is that not getting any is a lot better than waking up the next day thinking "oh, E36 M3."

    ...then chewing your arm off like a coyote to get away.

  • PHeller

    Nov. 5, 2009 3:25 p.m. PHeller HalfDork

    Rex, you're cool. I understand what your saying. I came here looking for a wide variety of answers.

    Duke made a point I agree with as well and Snowdoggie sorta reinforced it.

    I may find a woman I want to marry but I still may not want to have kids immediately.

    I'm also not saying that I'd ever pressure a woman into doing something she doesn't want to do.

    I also wouldn't be into a woman who those types of religious convictions that kept her from using birth control, but that's whole other topic all together.

    The topic is just focused around a woman who is opposed to taking hormone based birth control because it might mess with her system. She may be ignorant on the subject. She may have been in relationships where her past partners were sterile. She may have been in relationships where her past partners didn't care about her getting pregnant. It doesn't matter, because now (theoretically speaking) I'm into her, and we're clicking, and things are going great, and I'm in love with someone I can't have a sex life with for fear of babies.

  • Mike Honcho

    Nov. 5, 2009 3:28 p.m. Mike Honcho MegaDork

    So you are not against a relationship with Salanis?

  • Giant Purple Snorklewacker

    Nov. 5, 2009 3:30 p.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker Dork

    I'm not sure why this is so complicated. You asked for mature input and she has atleast 2 mature inputs that no one has ever gotten pregnant by exploiting. Problem solved.

  • DukeOfUndersteer

    Nov. 5, 2009 3:32 p.m. DukeOfUndersteer Dork

    well, look what happened to me with my girlfriend that didnt use birth control... we have a future Danica Patrick...

  • oldsaw

    Nov. 5, 2009 3:55 p.m. oldsaw HalfDork

    Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

    I'm not sure why this is so complicated. You asked for mature input and she has atleast 2 mature inputs that no one has ever gotten pregnant by exploiting. Problem solved.

    You had to go there, didn't you?

    Then again, maybe Pheller needs to go there, too!

  • Snowdoggie

    Nov. 5, 2009 3:59 p.m. Snowdoggie HalfDork

    PHeller wrote:

    Rex, you're cool. I understand what your saying. I came here looking for a wide variety of answers.

    Duke made a point I agree with as well and Snowdoggie sorta reinforced it.

    I may find a woman I want to marry but I still may not want to have kids immediately.

    I'm also not saying that I'd ever pressure a woman into doing something she doesn't want to do.

    I also wouldn't be into a woman who those types of religious convictions that kept her from using birth control, but that's whole other topic all together.

    The topic is just focused around a woman who is opposed to taking hormone based birth control because it might mess with her system. She may be ignorant on the subject. She may have been in relationships where her past partners were sterile. She may have been in relationships where her past partners didn't care about her getting pregnant. It doesn't matter, because now (theoretically speaking) I'm into her, and we're clicking, and things are going great, and I'm in love with someone I can't have a sex life with for fear of babies.

    If you have religious differences with the woman you want to marry, birth control is only one of the problems you will face. What about where you will be going on Sunday morning, how you are going to raise your kids, what kind of friends you are going to have hanging out in the garage, and on and on and on. You better have all of this sorted out long before the day you wake up and realize, "OMG I got her pregnant."

  • Nov. 5, 2009 4:16 p.m. SVreX PowerDork

    PHeller wrote:

    The topic is just focused around a woman who is opposed to taking hormone based birth control because it might mess with her system. She may be ignorant on the subject. She may have been in relationships where her past partners were sterile. She may have been in relationships where her past partners didn't care about her getting pregnant. It doesn't matter, because now (theoretically speaking) I'm into her, and we're clicking, and things are going great, and I'm in love with someone I can't have a sex life with for fear of babies.

    OK, lets focus.

    Are you suggesting that hormone based birth controls are more reliable?

    Are you suggesting that she just doesn't understand how safe they are?

    Question: If such a thing existed (and it sounds like they are close), would you have any reservations to taking hormonally based MALE contraceptives? What if there were legitimate studies showing there were potentially long term adverse effects? Would it be OK if she wasn't willing to do the wild thing with you if you weren't willing to take them?

    BTW, the young people I know who choose to abstain generally do not do it for fear of having babies (or STD's). They do it because they place value on it, and they have convictions they wish to stand on, and they believe there will be significant and long term benefits from waiting. Did you know there is a Facebook discussion group called "I'm Saving Myself for Wild, Passionate, Awkward Honeymoon Sex"?

    Some people see abstaining as receiving something of great value, not being deprived of something they want.

  • pigeon

    Nov. 5, 2009 4:20 p.m. pigeon HalfDork

    oldsaw wrote:

    Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

    I'm not sure why this is so complicated. You asked for mature input and she has atleast 2 mature inputs that no one has ever gotten pregnant by exploiting. Problem solved.

    You had to go there, didn't you?

    Then again, maybe Pheller needs to go there, too!

    Reminds me of a story told about an old acquaintance of a friend. Seems the acquaintance was a very attractive young lady in college who was "saving herself for marriage" by engaging exclusively in anal sex. She was a very popular date.

« 1 2 3 »  

You'll need to log in to post.