Question about precum

[CrazyAsianBiker]

This is why having a girlfriend you can trust on birth control is amazingly versatile. hahaha.

 

[Jay-X]

Originally posted by diablo
Both of these statements are patently false, incorrect, and inaccurate. I've read your 'arguments', Porky, and found that you contradict yourself even in a source you quoted:

If something is "higher" than it was before, then that means beforehand it was "lower". In the dictionary's definition of the word, "lower" can not equal "nothing"... In other words, there might not be as many sperm in the pre-ejaculate if the person has not had an orgasm within the past 72 hours (sperm live for 3 days), but there are still some in there.

Furthermore, I find it extremely ironic that you cut out the parts of the Wikipedia definition that counter your argument that pre-ejaculate does not contain any sperm... Here is a quote from Wikipedia that you conveniently "left out":



- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-ejaculate



No offense, but which do you think will cost more - a box of condoms or raising a child for 18 years (or if you're both pro-choice, an abortion)? Only an idiot would use "they're too expensive" as a reason that they don't wear condoms. Hell, they give them away in every public health center and hospital! How old are you?!

i'm 18, but here in italy they don't give away condoms in public health centers or hospitals

 

[diablo]

Normally I wouldn't bother writing such a lengthy reply, however I decided to make an exception after receiving an exceptionally mature unsolicited PM from "Porky" :

Subject: pre-***

Porky wrote on 10-12-2005 10:25 PM:
you got ***** slapped all over the place in that thread.

thanks

Now, on to the reply.

Originally posted by Porky
I didn't "conveniently" leave anything out, Diablo.

If you didn't intentionally leave out the statement that didn't agree with what you said even after reading it, I apologize. However, let's look at the word "convenient".

Convenient: Suited or favorable to one's comfort, purpose, or needs. (http://www.dictionary.com)

Your purpose was to convince others that pre-ejaculate contains no sperm. The fact that you left out a contradictory statement which appeared on the same page as information you quoted is decidedly convenient to your purpose. If you'll notice, I never said if I thought this was intentional or not.

Originally posted by Porky
Okay Diablo, we can be overly technical.

My apologies again. I assumed because you used a word (higher) that you knew its definition.

Originally posted by Porky
Exactly why I gave more than one source saying the same thing...

Just because there is more than one source for a topic doesn't mean that the sources are completely accurate (or even slightly accurate, for that matter). Take the following three web sites chosen at random that claim that humans were genetically engineered by aliens:

http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2002/voron.htm
http://www.ufoarea.com/lloyd_genetic.html
http://ufoinfo.com/news/engineered.shtml

Extreme examples? Absolutely. However, they serve to illustrate the point that there are a multitude of different websites out there which say any number of things, some of which are wildly inaccurate, grossly exaggerated, or flat out untrue. Then again, there are websites that are telling the truth. It's up to the reader to determine which category each statement on each site falls into.

Originally posted by Porky
most studies show that pre-*** only has ...

"Most studies" is rather arbitrary. However, it would seem that you must have put in a lot of effort reading the results of said studies in order to determine whether "most studies" agreed or disagreed with your position. Why don't you link us to copies of these studies? Thanks in advance.

Anyway, enough arguing. Your stance is that sperm is not present in pre-ejaculate. Mine is that it is. You quoted Wikipedia and some random web sites that not many people have either heard of or visited ever before (coolnurse.com, sexualhealth.com). Now it's my turn to quote a website or two... I choose a little-known site called "WebMD".

Unfortunately this method of contraception ('pulling out') is highly ineffective, because pre-ejaculatory fluid (sometimes called "pre-***") does indeed contain sperm.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/41/1687_50089.htm

Not convinced? Here's another article from WebMD:

That's because pre-ejaculate -- fluid emitted by the man before ejaculation -- often contains sperm as well as cells that can harbor the AIDS virus.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/57/66064.htm?src=rss_cbsnews

I know, I know. Two articles, you say. Coincidence! Crackpot doctors! I suppose the third time is the charm:

Although you didn't ejaculate inside of her, soon after an erection occurs, a little bit of pre-ejaculatory fluid (which is commonly known as "pre-***" and contains sperm) is released.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/42/1687_50310.htm

Originally posted by Porky
now that I'm done holding your hand through that, is there a point you're trying to make, Diablo?

Like I mentioned earlier, the point I am making is that pre-ejaculate does indeed contain sperm in most instances - however, thank you for holding my hand, and thank you for your very grown-up PM.

 

[TheRelic]

:crackup: :crackup: :crackup:

Diablo, you've missed your calling... next time I need a lawyer, i'm calling you.

Can't say i'm halfway surprised at the content of said PM.

Now you know, Porky

 

[diablo]

Originally posted by TheRelic
Diablo, you've missed your calling... next time I need a lawyer, i'm calling you.

Actually, that's what I'm in school for...

 

[arcilitei34]

I wonder, pre *** only happens once everytime the man gets excited right? once it comes out does it ever come out again at all? I just wanna double check but this is why my **** gets really wet under the foreskin during foreplay right?

 

[TheRelic]

Originally posted by diablo
Actually, that's what I'm in school for...

Heh, was under the assumption photography was the yellow brick road.

At least you can't say i've been e-stalking you .

 

[doctoroxygen]

The thing that bothers me about the idea that pre-*** has live sperm content is that it's taken as common sense, when the only studies I've seen, which are also the only studies on the subject, say that pre-*** contains NO MOTILE SPERM. So WebMD can say whatever it wants, but there's no science backing it up.

 

[diablo]

Originally posted by doctoroxygen
...

This is still going on?

Look, here's the deal - if prec*m never contained sperm then the "pull-out" method would work 100% of the time when done properly. Obviously, it doesn't. Since there are a small handful of studies (2 or 3, I believe someone mentioned earlier in the thread) that have ever been done on this (compared to thousands on the effects of tobacco) I wouldn't place much faith in the fact that their results are set in stone.

An analogy would be if I were a shop owner and opened my store at 10am. The first three people who walked through the door were caucasian, so I made the assumption that because they were white then everyone else in the world must be white as well.

By the way, are you sure you actually read the results of those studies? You'll find that what they say is that prec*m does not contain sperm on it's own. With that I agree 100%, however the following quote might explain my position better:

However, if a man has sperm in his urethra from a previous ejaculation, that sperm can be carried by the pre-***. Usually, sperm leftover in the urethra are expelled by urination.

But if the man has not urinated, or has not urinated forcefully enough, the leftover sperm can be transferred to the precum. It may be a smaller amount than the usual 70 million sperm in normal ejaculate – but it just takes one to cause pregnancy.

Bottom line is that you can do what you want, but I'm not going to be joining the "pull-out" club anytime soon... the list of fathers who are members is just too long for my taste.

Oh, and this belongs in H&F...

 

[naoi deag se deag]

I never have pre-come. Is that a health problem?