Amethyst

What she said was "almost impossible" and "nearly impossible", and that is how I quoted her. Besides, I'd rather clear up a misunderstanding with June than have another girl end up pregnant because she thought she read 'somewhere on the internet' that a girl can't get pregnant unless the guy ejaculates. At any rate, this is an old topic. I'm sure the originator has long since found out for sure whether she's pregnant or not, so all of this arguing is moot.

Check out your first response. You said absolutely NOTHING about penetration v/s contact. All you said was that it was almost impossible because there was no ejaculation (thus, no high rate of speed). If you meant that it was almost impossible because he wasn't inside her, then that's what you should've said. The truth is that precum CAN get a girl pregnant. That is the point of contention here, as you seemed to be saying it couldn't.

June, sperm does not HAVE to be "shot out at a good rate of speed so it can make it up inside you" -- they DO swim, you know. Precum DOES, in fact, get women pregnant, because it only takes ONE sperm inside the vagina (ANYWHERE inside the vagina) to fertilize an egg. I'm not saying she's pregnant, but it's nowhere near the "almost impossible" rating you claim. You might want to do a little research on it yourself.

Karen, try re-reading your posts. You continuously qualify how much you 'wanted it' by saying something like "the last time, anyway". Take a look at your reply to me to see an example: Who are you really trying to convince, us or yourself? You need to take a step back and really think about whether you're truly ready for sex or not. Just because you're 20-years-old and have a sex drive doesn't mean you're ready for sex. As I said, sex is NOT just a physical experience...it has a lot of emotional ties. (And, I'm not talking about emotional ties to the partner; although, that is part of it. I'm talking about emotional ties that say you WANT to have sex EMOTIONALLY. You have to have a deep-seeded desire to have it; not just a surface desire that says 'my body wants it so I'll do it'.) To answer your question about pain, let me state this: It will continue to hurt as long as you continue on this road. The only way the [pain of] sex will change is if you and your attitude about sex change. As long as you see it as purely physical and do it just because you think biology demands it, you are going to continue to hate the experience.

I agree with justagirl. A red flag went up in my mind when I read this part of your post: It hurts so much because you aren't into it in the slightest. Sex isn't just something you do because you're bored or because you think you have to. Sex is the most intimate connection between two people. EVERY time you have sex should be a "meaningful encounter"; and, if it isn't, then the question is really whether you should currently be having sex AT ALL. (BTW: The fact that you also point out you were only "turned on" the last time is another indication that you don't need to be having sex. One shouldn't have sex unless s/he wants it; and, if s/he wants it, s/he'll be turned on.)

It may well depend on *which* birth control pill you're on. (The 2-4 week thing that I posted earlier was a timespan given to me by an ob/gyn, as well.) In that case, it might be best to ask your doctor about the length of time needed for the pill *you* are on to take effect.

Nuh-uh, that's the morning after pill, and the "morning after" pill and "birth control" pills are NOT the same thing. The birth control pill takes 2 - 4 weeks of regular dosage before becoming effective.

WOW! Sounds like you are the one who needs to calm down there. I honestly have NO idea what I said to make you think I was "attacking" anyone! I agree that he and his girlfriend are having communication problems. That's why I said he needs to *talk to her*. Honestly, I have no idea what his girlfriend meant by "serious". I know people who don't consider it 'serious' until you bring up the "M" word (marriage), and I know others who believe any relationship that has lasted more than 2 weeks is 'serious'. She could have meant either of those or anything in between; none of us really have any way of knowing. Like I said, different people give it different meanings, and I'd hate to try and guess what his gf meant and be wrong. He really does need to ask *her* to clarify what she meant -- that's the ONLY way to know *for sure* what's she's thinking. Getting a bunch of different definitions from us will only serve to further confuse him, because the definitions won't match up. (Besides, how will asking us to define what she meant aid *their* communication problem? Part of communication is discussion -- if he doesn't discuss this with her, then he doesn't communicate this with her.) No attack here; only trying to be helpful.

That doesn't mean *she* has to "like" them back. It's her life; and, the fact is, it's really none of your business (or anyone else's, for that matter). She's an adult and is old enough to make her own decisions. If she's making a mistake, so be it -- it's *her* mistake to make.

This is so frustrating to me because people keep saying they agree with me except for such-and-such when I *never said* such-and-such. I feel like I must be speaking Greek! I've expressed the EXACT sentiment a few times already: No offense to anyone, but this is my final post in this thread. I'm really getting tired of defending myself against statements I never made. Sammy, I truly hope things work out for you and your girlfriend. You seem like a really nice and understanding guy, and you deserve to be happy.

Thank you. That's very sweet of you to say. Maybe I *am* being idealistic; after all, I live in a society where half of all marriages end in divorce. But, I don't think that changes the fact that true love really is forever -- more likely I think it proves that people often settle for less.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see how going without sex (or having limited sex) for any length of time is going to "destroy" who a person is. Yes, true love is give and take. But, "either you work through your problems so we can have sex or I'm going to leave" doesn't sound like give and take. That sounds incredibly selfish to me. Bringing up a couple who has split and the one tries to get back with the other is hardly the same thing. Giving up in that case is simply accepting reality -- the reality that there is no longer a relationship. The reality here is NOT that there is no relationship -- the reality here is that there IS a relationship but it has a PROBLEM. Love desires to work through problems. Again, that goes for both of them. If they can't overcome this, then the relationship is not made of true love. Edit: One more thing (and it's a genuine question) -- how can you say it's "sexual incompatibility" when their sex life was fine for a year? I mean, they only just started having problems a few months ago, and I would've thought incompatibility should've shown from the get-go.

While I do think it would prove his love to be slightly more "shallow" (your wording, not mine), I never once meant to imply it would make him a "lesser person". Love is not selfish -- an example of that is marriage vows which state "for better or for worse". Yes, I know they are not married and I'm not trying to say he is under such a vow. I'm simply saying that true love can overcome any barrier. If something lessens or nullifies "love" (as would be the case if this situation causes him to leave her), then I don't see how it was ever true. Time does not determine love. I mean no ill reflection on Sammy. I think most of us (myself included) could probably say that we once thought we were truly in love, but we later realized that wasn't the case. That's the only thing I would see happening in this case -- he has the best of intentions but that doesn't necessarily make his feelings as strong as he thinks (or even wants). Beec, as for your question of how long should he wait, I can't answer that. Again, that's *his* decision and I can't make it for him. I do believe that true love is long-suffering and without time limits; but, again, I do not think it makes him a bad person if his love is not so true and he finds he doesn't want to stay. However, I will agree with this: It does work both ways. If she loves him enough, she'll want to work through this. But, at the same time, that doesn't mean anyone should expect her to rush into it. It will *still* take time, and I can't really say that a year is enough or too much -- that's between the two of them.

I am not assuming. Check back over my posts and you'll find that I state things like I "thought" that might be the case or other phrases like "if she was, in fact, raped". As I said in my first post, SOMETHING caused the change in behavior. That is not an assumption; that is fact. I am not trying to make him feel guilty. I am saying that, when we love someone, we place *their* needs over our own. If he is unable to do that, I have to question the true depth of his feelings. That's all I'm saying. Again, you are reading into my post. I made no demand. In fact, I said he needed to determine if this was something he could stay with her inspite of or if he needed to get out now. I made no judgement or demand and even said that it was "fine" if he didn't want to stay. I simply said (as most everyone else has agreed) it's decision time for him -- either he stays or goes, period. Again, show me where I stated otherwise. I never said he was not entitled to "decide whether the sacrifice is reasonable". In fact, I stated that very thing (though, not in so many words). I said he had two choices -- stay or go. I left the decision up to him. You're debating that my advice is invalid, but I'm agreeing with your position.

That's what I'm banking on. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I still think it's selfish to end it just because she won't have sex. It's not like things will be like this forever -- she just has to have time to come to terms with whatever has happened. Yes, I know she's already "had time", but these things don't work on a schedule. If a woman is raped or abused, it *is* difficult to deal with; and, it's *not* something you can expect her to freely talk about before she's ready to do so. Some rape survivors need years before they are able to discuss what happened with others. (It's a very shaming and humiliating thing, and many feel that no one would love them or want to be around them if they knew it happened.) Whereas most seem to see her refusal to go to the doctor as "immature", I see it as a sign that she just isn't ready to deal with that yet. (If she was, in fact, raped; then, she would have to deal with the physical experience of being examined PLUS the emotional experience of reliving that trauma.) The same is true for the counseling...going for help involves admitting that it happened and reliving it through discussion. Sammy, the way I see it, you have two choices. You can do your best to be there for her and help her work through it; or, you can leave and let her deal with things on her own. It really depends on what's in your heart. In other words, if you decide to stay, then you need to realize it's for the long-haul. If you don't think you can last that long, don't even try. It sounds like she's really going to need the people who really love her and will be willing to work through all of this according to *her* timetable (not someone else's). If you fit that description, that's wonderful -- just let her know you love her, your feelings *won't* change no matter WHAT happened, and you'll be there when she's ready to speak with you about it. If you *don't* fit that description, then go ahead and get out now so that she may find someone who *does*. Staying with her when your heart isn't in it will only make things worse for both of you.