AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Unless my doctor lied to me when I was tested for STDs, condoms are only 80 - 90% effective, depending on the brand and type you're using.

Not to mention the risk of breakage, in which case they become as effective as using no protection at all.

The second best thing to do is take all precautions you can. Like I said, I use both pills and condoms. But like Craft said, the best thing to do is just not have sex at all.

HIV being spread to humans by bestiality is ridiculous! The very most likely reason is that the monkey was eaten!

And not in that way!

Miss StarSeed wrote:Unless my doctor lied to me when I was tested for STDs, condoms are only 80 - 90% effective, depending on the brand and type you're using.

No, condoms themselves fully stop pregnancy, they can't seep. Except when something went wrong, which is where that 98% comes in. Chances of pregnancy generally reduce the more practice you have.


Edit: oh, sorry, STDs. That's far higher, yes, condoms aren't fully protective against most of those.

Miss StarSeed wrote:Unless my doctor lied to me when I was tested for STDs, condoms are only 80 - 90% effective, depending on the brand and type you're using.

Not to mention the risk of breakage, in which case they become as effective as using no protection at all.

The second best thing to do is take all precautions you can. Like I said, I use both pills and condoms. But like Craft said, the best thing to do is just not have sex at all.

Well no, normally you don't risk anything with condoms on, if, indeed, they don't break...
... I'm pretty sure of it, but if your doctor said so I might be wrong, even though I keep on thinking I'm not wrong, which would make me right, right ?
And not having sex at all is not too careful either. If your hand has STDs, you might get one. But mine got tested, she's fine.
Oh my hand I can trust you I'm so pop flyin'

EDIT : oh crap I was sure condoms were entirely safe... durr, looks like if I was wrong after all...
Well I'm off looking for some info about that...

Miss StarSeed wrote:But like Craft said, the best thing to do is just not have sex at all.

like you could resist me me, star

/flexes

You're right, Loli, I can't. That's why I'm on these pills, my darling~

Miss StarSeed wrote:You're right, Loli, I can't. That's why I'm on these pills, my darling~

~

Loli, could I join you ?
What do you mean, "piss off ?"
Hey, I just found that on wiki :
"Because condoms are waterproof, elastic, and durable, they are also used in a variety of secondary applications. These include collection of semen for use in infertility treatment as well as non-sexual uses such as creating waterproof microphones and protecting rifle barrels from clogging."
Hahahahaha

EDIT : holy crap I'm sorry, looks like if I was wrong indeed, sorry... :3 I thought condoms were perfect, but... meh...
But there's only 2% to end up pregnant !
And this is great :
"The term condom first appears in the early 18th century. Its etymology is unknown. In popular tradition, the invention and naming of the condom came to be attributed to an associate of England's King Charles II, one "Dr. Condom" or "Earl of Condom". There is however no evidence of the existence of such a person, and condoms had been used for over one hundred years before King Charles II ascended to the throne.

A variety of Latin etymologies have been proposed, including condon (receptacle), condamina (house), and cumdum (scabbard or case) It has also been speculated to be from the Italian word guantone, derived from guanto, meaning glove. William E. Kruck wrote an article in 1981 concluding that, "As for the word 'condom', I need state only that its origin remains completely unknown, and there ends this search for an etymology." Modern dictionaries may also list the etymology as "unknown".

Other terms are also commonly used to describe condoms. In North America condoms are also commonly known as prophylactics, or rubbers. In Britain they may be called French letters. Additionally, condoms may be referred to using the manufacturer's name."

John Craft wrote:And where the hell did you find a statistic saying "men have more sex than women" ?!

Well, since hetrosexual sex must have one of either gender, and since lesbians can't technically have sex, a single gay couple having sex would tip that over to the 'men have more sex' side.

I always liked Dave Chapelle's jokes about the start of AIDs.

"A monkey would rip your dick off like a celery stalk."

Why wouldn't women have "technical" sex ?... when girls have sex, they have sex... You don't need a penetration to have sex...
What is this I don't even

AIDS is serious business.

Plasma wrote:Well, since hetrosexual sex must have one of either gender, and since lesbians can't technically have sex, a single gay couple having sex would tip that over to the 'men have more sex' side.

Statistically, gay men have sex on average over 10,000 times a year!

Karilyn wrote:

Plasma wrote:Well, since hetrosexual sex must have one of either gender, and since lesbians can't technically have sex, a single gay couple having sex would tip that over to the 'men have more sex' side.

Statistically, gay men have sex on average 7.23 times a day!

Just one couple? O_o Or did I misunderstand?

I had this upstanding member of society bisexual friend who said to me once that gay men are sluts.

I lol'd and thought it was sorta harsh.

Miss StarSeed wrote:

Karilyn wrote:

Plasma wrote:Well, since hetrosexual sex must have one of either gender, and since lesbians can't technically have sex, a single gay couple having sex would tip that over to the 'men have more sex' side.

Statistically, gay men have sex on average 7.23 times a day!

Just one couple? O_o Or did I misunderstand?

it's dark and merlin