PRECUM DEBATE ENDED!!!!NO SPERM IN PRECUM!!!

Every single conclusion to a tested hypothesis HAS to be published for peer review, whether the margin of error or randomness is low or high.

Secondly, hypotheses are never confirmed based on favorable results. Not ever. They are instead to be proved wrong. It takes years of prediction and accuracy of those predictions to call any hypothesis a theory.

Without the reference of margin of error or margin for randomness, using those results is a waste of time. I would imagine like everything, the will be variables. As someone who got pregnant without my husband even coming close to ejaculating inside of me, I would have to say this group of subjects were had a high margin of results due randomness.

Well, the results of the study can be a considerable point against those who claim to be pregnant due to pre-cum.

I am troubled by those who claim they got pregnant by pre-cum because I'm sure there is more to just a faulty withdrawal method.

The pregnancy they claim may be attributed to a loss of self-control or a premature ejaculation of real sperm! Im talking of the presence of real sperm and not only the secretion of the Cowper's gland.

I see two sides to this debate; there is and isn't sperm in precum. How many of you have microscopes powerful enough to check out precum? how many of you have the time to look for any evidence of sperm in precum? It seems to me that the answer is simple. Regardless if there is or if there isn't sperm in precum, as insurance you should use all forms of birth control.

Wow! I'm floored by such a debate! Can I say the only thing you're every likely to get from pre-ejaculatory fluid is...an STI!

I have used the withdrawal method with 3 of my long term partners and the only time I have ever fell pregnant has been when the ejaculation has taken place inside me. Now let's not get into the whole ovulation and pregnancy thing! As my auntie pointed out who has been a midwife for over 35 years, you can get pregnant anytime of your cycle as only about 30% of women have a regular 28 cycle and know when they're ovulating!

Now back to the pre-ejaculate. I'm in the no sperm content camp. If it was that easy to get pregnant off it there would be a much, much higher pregnancy rate than there is! If you look at fertility rates in the past 10 years they've dropped dramatically! Due to reasons such as lifestyle choice, i.e recreational drugs, stress from work, wanting to get an established career first which leads to leaving it to late in some couples cases to be able to conceive easily.

All those people out there stating they're "living proof" of a precum birth, how naive do you think the people on here are? The reason you're pregnant is because you're not using birth control correctly and releasing it's full potential or ya boy just really didn't pull out in time...simple!

And as for treating teens like they're retarded, get a grip, they're gonna get this info from somewhere else, may as well give em a head start and provide them with facts...not wasted scare tactics!!!

Ok...let the bashing commence!

THERE IS DEF SPERM IN PRE-CUM, MY SISTER GOT PREGNANT TWICE USING THE PULL OUT METHOD... :-D

I know a woman who just got pregnant. She was on the pill and used it %100 correctly. She also used a diaphragm. Her partner used a condom and spermicide and he 'pulled out on time' ... but he pre-came and got her pregnant.

hey guys,

a study from march 2011 which shows that "41% [of test subjects] produced pre-ejaculatory samples that contained spermatozoa and in ... 37% a reasonable proportion of the sperm was motile."

 ***this post is edited by moderator *** *** web addresses not allowed*** 

also, a couple of points:

• saying "i know someone who..." does not decide the debate either way. anecdotal evidence is never a good basis for generalizable conclusions. there are always exceptions to the rule (like the apocryphal 95 year old grandmother who drinks a quart of gin every day and has smoked 60 benson & hedges every day since she was 11 and still feels just fine, thank-you. there is still an undeniable causal link with drinking too much and death from liver disease etc. and smoking too much and developing lung cancer etc.) there is a reason the scientific method has been in vogue since the renaissance: we need test conditions, adequate sample sizes and all-round sound methodology before valid conclusions can be drawn.
  
• secondly, it is notoriously difficult to ascertain, after the fact, the exact conditions under which an individual became pregnant. sometimes people tell lies, because they are embarrassed over their actual behaviour; sometimes people simply do not know their own bodies half as well as they think they do; sometimes people's memories let them down. while some men are able to finely control the exact moment of ejaculation, most are not totally self-controlled, 100% of the time.
  
• no matter how controlled either party is, generally, neither men nor women are aware of the exact moment pre-cum starts.

all this leads to the unavoidable conclusion that will be followed by any sensible person - in the words of the researchers themselves:

Quote:

"Hence, condoms should continue to be used from the first moment of genital contact..."

so, finally, there are three main separate points here:

• coitus interruptus, if practised perfectly, will result in pregnancy in 4 cases out of 100 over a year (compared to 3 times in 1000 over a year with perfect use of the pill, for example).
  
• around 4 in 10 men do produce motile sperm in their pre-cum and there is no way of telling who those individual men are without subjecting them to lab study. (here's a helpful comparison table on the effectiveness of all methods of birth control - note the discrepancy between the methods' effectiveness if practised perfectly and as they are typically practised!)
• all this information only relates to the chances of becoming pregnant using this method. coitus interruptus, obviously, does nothing whatsoever to protect either party from contracting STIs.
  

hope this sheds some light.

be careful out there. :)

1: You can totally feel when your guy has ejaculated inside you.  It's so hard to miss that if you do, you must be too broke to pay attention.

You can DEFINITELY still get pregnant if you're on the pill.... Although it is very effective, it is not 100% effective. There's always that slim chance that you can still get pregnant when on the pill. It happens to thousands of women. Start asking your friends and you'll find it has happened a lot. No type of contraception device is 100% effective except for sexual abstinence.

I got pregnant from precum. 100% certain of this fact.

How much semen is in precum after previous ejeclation?

How much semen is in precum after previous ejeclation?

Jesus, another retarded christian on the loose.

what if you didn't ejaculate before or take a piss and had an extremely small amount of precum and stuck it inside the girl? Would that be a chance of impregnating her? I only had it in there for about 10 seconds then pulled out.

I just would like to comment on the fact that you are yelling at someone else about how stupid they are, and you implied that using two forms of birth control and not having sex are equally effective, which is a ridiculous assumption.