Sexual health - a Panorama documentary - Page 3

¡Punk! · 14th October 2005, 11:31am

I've yet to find a condom that doesn't ruin it. This is because condoms were invented for circumcised people and I'm not. The best part of sex is the foreskin sliding back over the head as you enter and getting all warm and tingly

.....and this doesn't happen if you're wearing a condom.

Purplerose · 14th October 2005, 1:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny Everett

You can get an appointment at your doctor for getting these tests done, I don;t know why more folk don;t use that option. My doc keeps appointments free every day for stuff like this

Lots of docters don't do things like that anymore. The best my surgery will do are smear tests and pregnancy tests and for anything else, they refer you to sandyford in glasgow or the russell institute in Paisley.

xph0ria · 14th October 2005, 10:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punk

This is because condoms were invented for circumcised people and I'm not.

Doubt that's the truth. Circumcised guys lose a lot of sensitivity after being cut, and sticking on a rubber makes it even harder to enjoy sex. Speaking from experience, I might possibly have a bit more staying power than a guy who's uncut because of the lack of sensitivity, when I put a condom on, I feel nothing: I'll do my back in trying to cum.

Fuck, I hate being cut.

Also led me to develop some sort of fetish for a foreskin, too

¡Punk! · 14th October 2005, 10:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Doubt that's the truth. Circumcised guys lose a lot of sensitivity after being cut, and sticking on a rubber makes it even harder to enjoy sex. Speaking from experience, I might possibly have a bit more staying power than a guy who's uncut because of the lack of sensitivity, when I put a condom on, I feel nothing: I'll do my back in trying to cum.

Fuck, I hate being cut.

Also led me to develop some sort of fetish for a foreskin, too

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure it's just as bad for you freaks and Jews but I don't think they were invented with a foreskin in mind.

Foxglove · 14th October 2005, 11:02pm

Condoms rarely enhance a sexual experience, but surely the risks of getting an STI by being with a number of people, regardless of being tested "regularly", outweigh the lack of sensitivity? (Once a year is "regular", but if you have had 10 partners in that year and not used condoms at all, then the risks are relatively high and how often are tests needed to ensure your health and maybe more importantly the health of your partners? Most clinics would recommend a test for each partner and this to be clear before condoms are not used. Seems sensible advise.)

¡Punk! · 14th October 2005, 11:06pm

What I don't get it is many people are all for safe sex and swear blind by it. Fair enough. But then they'll give you a blow job. I mean.. you can get all the diseases down there in your mouth as well pretty much...

xph0ria · 14th October 2005, 11:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punk

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure it's just as bad for you freaks...

Cheeky mare!

As if I had a choice, IT WAS MEDICAL! Possibly the majority of people I speak to (epsecially women) prefer a guy who's cut.

I don't

If condoms don't help a guy with a foreskin, then the guy that invented them must have bloody hated circumcised guys.

Darrenski · 14th October 2005, 11:13pm

People still view pregnancy as a bigger disease than any STI in this country.
Otherwise condoms would be the preferred method of contraception rather than the pill or an implant for example...

xph0ria · 14th October 2005, 11:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punk

What I don't get it is many people are all for safe sex and swear blind by it. Fair enough. But then they'll give you a blow job. I mean.. you can get all the diseases down there in your mouth as well pretty much...

I don't know how many guys I've been with who won't even dream of fucking without a condom, but would never consider using a condom for a blowjob.

Foxglove · 14th October 2005, 11:30pm

It is true that STIs can be transmitted through oral sex - although a quick trawl on the net has not helped me to find any statistics on the comparison of risk. It is also probably true that a lot of people look at the risk of oral sex and getting an STI as far less than that of vaginal/anal sex. Whilst in an ideal world, maybe we would all automatically use barriers such as condoms or dental dams or latex squares.

This site seems typical of the information I have found on a quick search of the net:

http://www.pamf.org/teen/sex/std/oral/

It makes statements such as

Quote:

Though there's admittedly less risk of STIs in oral sex than in vaginal or anal sex, the risk still exists.

and maybe by seeing such statements, many people make the decision that the risk being less is one we are willing to take. With more and better information, perhaps more people would decide that such risks are also not worth taking?

Advertisement