Date: 2011-12-04 01:48 am (UTC)
Since the information we share with one another in this particular comm can bear on important and high-consequence matters, it would probably be helpful in this milieu to choose your language more wisely - it has assuredly not been "concluded that pre-cum does not contain sperm" as you say. Two studies - one with a pool of less than twenty subjects, and one which actually showed sperm (albeit possibly non motile) to be PRESENT in Cowper's fluid - does not a scientific consensus make. You might note the specific terms of the 1993 sampling:

"Thus, only a couple of sperm, assuming motility, would reach the fallopian tubes in the case of the pre ejaculate samples with some sperm, which tended to be immobile (sperm levels only in the 1000s). Thus, the probability of pregnancy is very low if pre-ejaculate fluid enters the vagina."

Low does not equal zero. If you're that one woman in ten thousand facing an unwanted pregnancy b/c of awol sperm in Cowper's, the semantic difference between 'unlikely' and 'impossible' will be felt very keenly.

The bottom line is that even if most men's pre-ejaculate is clear of sperm most of the times they're engaged in coitus, there *are* times when it is present in it, and that is a fact that women and men should use in their decision making process regarding using withdrawal as a form of b.c. Even the page you cite to make your claim contradicts your stance: "the possibility remains that, in real life encounters, small amounts of sperm may be present in a male's pre-ejaculatory fluid."

All of this is not to nitpick, but to clarify what I felt could be a misleading and potentially dangerous statement.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

February 2019

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526 2728  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags