Possible Pregnancy - PLEASE HELP -

[itschilled]

I could have messed up. My Ex and i got together yesterday and we got in the "mood" and played with each other, we didn't have sex or anything but she had like yoga pants on, and i had taken my penis out and put it on her vagina( she still had joga pants, and i had some pre-sex liquid stuff come out. And she was wet. Getting to the point is it possible for her to get pregnant from just that. i read that its possible but we would have to have sex for that to happen.

PLEASEEE HELPP

[Abhorrence]

Uhhhh no it isn't really possible if she had clothes on...

[Broken Toy]

Youre good. It would be impossible to know at this point anyway and if thats how she gets pregnant thats got to be 1 in a million

[Babs]

Teen Sexuality & Gender :arrow: VT General Hospital
Non-contributing posts have been deleted, as those are considered spam. Please do not post if it contributes nothing to the discussion.

[Fiction]

Yeah there really is absolutely no chance. Pre-ejaculate actually has no sperm in it. It is used to "clean" the tubes so occasionally it contains old sperm that have been "cleaned" from a previous ejaculation. So it has an extremely low sperm count. Also since you only rubbed it against rather than put it in, the sperm would have a very long way to swim! Especially through clothes.... It is near enough impossible that she got pregnant this way.

If you're super worried then get the morning after pill but I really wouldn't recommend it in this case, the chance is minuscule if not totally impossible and that can really mess with your body for a couple of months.

[Cloud_Strife]

I could have messed up. My Ex and i got together yesterday and we got in the "mood" and played with each other, we didn't have sex or anything but she had like yoga pants on, and i had taken my penis out and put it on her vagina( she still had joga pants, and i had some pre-sex liquid stuff come out. And she was wet. Getting to the point is it possible for her to get pregnant from just that. i read that its possible but we would have to have sex for that to happen.

PLEASEEE HELPP

If you do a bit of reading, there is absolutely every chance that a man can impregnate a woman, even if they only ejaculated over their clothing. Likewise, if you look into it - the sperm content in pre-ejaculate fluid can be low or none.

Think about it - if a man ejaculates 20 million spermatozoa out in a go, and it only takes one single spermatozoa to get a woman pregnant? You do the math. Sperm are motile. You don't have to necessarily have to have penetrating sex for conception to occur.

I'd go and get her to see the family doctor immediately, for the morning after pill. Better to be safe than sorry.

[SethfromMI]

I guess it is possible, but sounds unlikely. you could always have her get tested. some places will even do it for free. but if she was wearing pants..I dunno, I wouldn't worry. but like I said, if she starts to get morning sickness or just want to go get tested, that is an option

[Laibachd]

I guess it is possible, but sounds unlikely. you could always have her get tested. some places will even do it for free. but if she was wearing pants..I dunno, I wouldn't worry. but like I said, if she starts to get morning sickness or just want to go get tested, that is an option

I als othink it might be possible, although highly unlikely

[SethfromMI]

I als othink it might be possible, although highly unlikely

I agree. it is hard for sperm to travel through clothing (as far as enough to get someone pregnant). some say it doesn't. I know I have never had that problem before

[Fiction]

If you do a bit of reading, there is absolutely every chance that a man can impregnate a woman, even if they only ejaculated over their clothing. Likewise, if you look into it - the sperm content in pre-ejaculate fluid can be low or none.

Think about it - if a man ejaculates 20 million spermatozoa out in a go, and it only takes one single spermatozoa to get a woman pregnant? You do the math. Sperm are motile. You don't have to necessarily have to have penetrating sex for conception to occur.

I'd go and get her to see the family doctor immediately, for the morning after pill. Better to be safe than sorry.

I really think this is an overreaction....

People trying for a baby only have a 25% chance of getting pregnant in a month. That is, having regular, fully penetrative sex. Chances are she was not at her fertile period. Chances are there were very few sperm in the pre-ejaculate. Chances are not one even reached her let alone all the way to her cervix. Chances are there was no egg there for it to fertilise!

Seriously, it is pretty much an impossibility. There is a minuscule chance, and I really mean miniscule. She is probably more likely to die in a car accident than to be pregnant.

Trust me, i've spent most of my teenage years worrying about silly things like this. Of course, when there is a real risk the morning after pill is called for, but for a risk so miniscule... she'll almost certainly be messing up her body for the month for no reason what so ever.

If you're really worried, you could always try the IUD? This acts as emergency contraception but can also be left in as permanent contraception, which if you're so worried you should perhaps be considering.

[Andyyy95]

Possible, but seriously unlikely if you consider all factors.
If you or her are worried though however, it's worth getting tested just to have that peace-of-mind.

[Cloud_Strife]

I really think this is an overreaction....

People trying for a baby only have a 25% chance of getting pregnant in a month. That is, having regular, fully penetrative sex. Chances are she was not at her fertile period. Chances are there were very few sperm in the pre-ejaculate. Chances are not one even reached her let alone all the way to her cervix. Chances are there was no egg there for it to fertilise!

Seriously, it is pretty much an impossibility. There is a minuscule chance, and I really mean miniscule. She is probably more likely to die in a car accident than to be pregnant.

Trust me, i've spent most of my teenage years worrying about silly things like this. Of course, when there is a real risk the morning after pill is called for, but for a risk so miniscule... she'll almost certainly be messing up her body for the month for no reason what so ever.

If you're really worried, you could always try the IUD? This acts as emergency contraception but can also be left in as permanent contraception, which if you're so worried you should perhaps be considering.

I am talking possibilities. I am not saying that the pregnancy will occur because of it. Of course the odds are against it happening. But the fact that it is low doesn't need it shouldn't be guarded against.

If you were told that there is less than 0.5% of catching HIV from being jabbed with a needle contaminated from an affected person, you wouldn't attend a doctor and receive post-exposure prophylaxis? You would advise all men and women to never have an STD screen just because the chance of catching something from that one encounter is low? Of course not. Weigh up the brevity of the situation and what's at stake to decide what should be done.

If everyone took on your mindset, nobody would take out health insurance, home insurance, car insurance, etc. Majority of people don't go out driving on the road expecting to crash or being crashed into. But yet car insurance is purchased because car crashes and accidents occur - despite the odds.

The context varies. One is more likely statistically to die from a car crash than from a shark attack, but this doesn't stop people from worrying about it.

You are free to make up your choice and so too, they for themselves. If he and his girlfriend are worried enough or anxious enough about it, then just the peace of mind is worth taking a pill for. Clearly he is concerned enough to post about it here.

People saying that the chances are low or miniscule doesn't make it none. He and his partner have to weigh it up, and asking their doctor would be more ideal for counselling would be helpful.

[Fiction]

I am talking possibilities. I am not saying that the pregnancy will occur because of it. Of course the odds are against it happening. But the fact that it is low doesn't need it shouldn't be guarded against.

If you were told that there is less than 0.5% of catching HIV from being jabbed with a needle contaminated from an affected person, you wouldn't attend a doctor and receive post-exposure prophylaxis? You would advise all men and women to never have an STD screen just because the chance of catching something from that one encounter is low? Of course not. Weigh up the brevity of the situation and what's at stake to decide what should be done.

If everyone took on your mindset, nobody would take out health insurance, home insurance, car insurance, etc. Majority of people don't go out driving on the road expecting to crash or being crashed into. But yet car insurance is purchased because car crashes and accidents occur - despite the odds.

The context varies. One is more likely statistically to die from a car crash than from a shark attack, but this doesn't stop people from worrying about it.

You are free to make up your choice and so too, they for themselves. If he and his girlfriend are worried enough or anxious enough about it, then just the peace of mind is worth taking a pill for. Clearly he is concerned enough to post about it here.

People saying that the chances are low or miniscule doesn't make it none. He and his partner have to weigh it up, and asking their doctor would be more ideal for counselling would be helpful.

The chance is far below 0.5%. I am just trying to reassure them how minuscule the chance is. If you read my first post I did actually say that if they where really worried she could take the morning after pill and also gave alternative emergency contraception. I just think this is far more useful than scare-mongering.

The morning-after pill is not without risk and effects on the woman. It's about weighing up risks and in this case I am sure the risks of the pill probably outweigh the risk of pregnancy, and I am just anticipating that seeing a doctor will perhaps not be possible.

[Cloud_Strife]

The chance is far below 0.5%. I am just trying to reassure them how minuscule the chance is. If you read my first post I did actually say that if they where really worried she could take the morning after pill and also gave alternative emergency contraception. I just think this is far more useful than scare-mongering.

The morning-after pill is not without risk and effects on the woman. It's about weighing up risks and in this case I am sure the risks of the pill probably outweigh the risk of pregnancy, and I am just anticipating that seeing a doctor will perhaps not be possible.

Essentially rewording what I was saying about balancing of probabilities.

Except, if you read carefully what I said, I said that if I were in that situation, I would personally end up organising an attendance with a doctor with intention of the morning after pill:

I'd go and get her to see the family doctor immediately, for the morning after pill. Better to be safe than sorry.

I didn't tell him he had to. This was me expressing what I would deem as my choice in such a scenario. Which it sounds like you are then agreeing to what I am saying to, by noting that the risks of pregnancy outweigh taking a pill and the side effects of crampy abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting:

It's about weighing up risks and in this case I am sure the risks of the pill probably outweigh the risk of pregnancy

My subsequent post then outlined that it is a case of balance of probabilities - risks of an event occurring and not occurring. I was not writing with intention of scaring anyone, which is what it seems like you are interpreting it to be.

I am also finding it puzzling, that you are saying the chances of becoming pregnant are so miniscule as to not advising to take a pill, but would advise an intrauterine device instead.

I really think this is an overreaction....

...

If you're really worried, you could always try the IUD? This acts as emergency contraception but can also be left in as permanent contraception, which if you're so worried you should perhaps be considering.

Which besides having a similar side effect profile of the pill, would then have additional permanent side effects of potentially even perforating the uterus, with a possibility of about 0.1%, if you read certain product disclosure statements or medical counseling sites.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control

So you would suggest taking the additional chances of perforating the uterus here, even when the chances of pregnancy are 'miniscule', which doesn't seem to make sense?

It's about weighing up risks and in this case I am sure the risks of the pill probably outweigh the risk of pregnancy, and I am just anticipating that seeing a doctor will perhaps not be possible.

Granted, one can have difficulties in many countries, getting in to see a doctor. However, most approved intrauterine devices would need a doctor to insert. Whereas the morning after pill is usually accessible over the counter at a pharmacy, where you don't even need to see a doctor for a prescription. So your anticipation, while right - then doesn't match your suggestion of an intrauterine device.

Furthermore, I don't believe there is an approved intrauterine device which is permanent, which is what you suggested. As far as I am aware, you can get products lasting 5-10 years at this point in time, before they need to be replaced or removed.

But we digress. We all just want to help itschilled, who is worried about what is happening and our goal is not argument.

So mate, if you are worried, I'd suggest you weigh up the risks and benefits for your scenario and then decide upon what to do. It sounds like time is a limiting factor here, and you should try and quickly decide upon what needs to be done and then commit to that decision. This should be done after discussion with your partner. Good luck.

[The37thElement]

Yeah there really is absolutely no chance. Pre-ejaculate actually has no sperm in it. It is used to "clean" the tubes so occasionally it contains old sperm that have been "cleaned" from a previous ejaculation. So it has an extremely low sperm count. Also since you only rubbed it against rather than put it in, the sperm would have a very long way to swim! Especially through clothes.... It is near enough impossible that she got pregnant this way.

If you're super worried then get the morning after pill but I really wouldn't recommend it in this case, the chance is minuscule if not totally impossible and that can really mess with your body for a couple of months.

You are half-correct. Pre-cum CAN contain any sperm (old or new). As long as the sperm is in liquid, it can survive. Sometimes, pre-cum will contain a miniscule amount of fresh sperm if the valve located inside the duct is slightly open when the pre-cum is extracted. This is why it is important to wear a condom right away during sex. Sperm from previous ejaculations don't usually survive since they don't live well outside of liquid.

As for the OP's question: it is EXTREMELY unlikely that you could have impregnated this girl as she was wearing clothes at the time. There is, however, a very small chance.

[Fiction]

Look Cloud_strife, please do not act like I'm stupid. I know the IUD needs changing, but it can be used as a permanent method. No need to be so pedantic about words. Also, I am anticipating all eventualities, the fact that they would be unable to see a doctor was just one of them. You are also confusing the IUD with the IUS, see below.

OP- the IUD is not a hormonal contraceptive device, so although there is a small risk of perforation the IUD tends to have less side effects. The IUD uses copper to kill sperm unlike the IUS which has similar hormones to the pill and other methods. It can also be used up to 5 days after intercourse whereas the pill can only be used 3. Insertion can be extremely painful however, and some women's bodies do not accept it and try to expel it. However in these situations it can be removed and it will still have prevented pregnancy from the last "incident".

I have tried almost all methods of contraception over the years so contrary to what other people in this thread think, I do actually know what I'm talking about.

Good luck. The risk is tiny either way so I'm sure you'll be fine :)

[skittle]

I agree with everything Fiction has said, that's good advice right there OP. The chances are so miniscule that you really have nothing to worry about.

[jssixna]

It's unlikely. Make sure you're careful next time and use protection.

[Cloud_Strife]

Look Cloud_strife, please do not act like I'm stupid. I know the IUD needs changing, but it can be used as a permanent method. No need to be so pedantic about words.

Nobody mentioned anything directly about your intelligence, nor made any reference to it indirectly. Although if you choose to make unsubstantiated inferences, nobody can stop you from doing so.

You know an IUD needs changing, but it can be used as a permanent contraceptive method? That sentence in itself, is contradictory. Permanent is permanent. Needing changing is not permanent. It's not even a matter of being pedantic or not. An example of permanent contraception would be something along the lines of a hysterectomy. An IUD is not permanent contraception. I concede that if one undergoes uterine perforation from an IUD, necessitating hysterectomy, then it is indeed; indirectly permanent contraception.

I am willing to be corrected, if you do find a current IUD which is deemed safe up to today's date, which is marketed for permanent contraception use.

although there is a small risk of perforation the IUD tends to have less side effects.

You're still repeating this, despite previous posts. The actual point was that you mentioned the chances of pregnancy were so miniscule as to not having to potentially guard against it, but you then essentially advised the partner of the original poster to increase their chances potentially hundred-fold and more of experiencing potentially a morbid adverse event of perforation but not accounting for it.

Seriously, it is pretty much an impossibility. There is a minuscule chance, and I really mean miniscule. She is probably more likely to die in a car accident than to be pregnant.

You said the chances of dying from a car accident was far, far more likely than pregnancy in this case. How you could presume to know the probability of this, one has to speculate. But let us presume you are right? According to the Harvard School of Public Health, the chances of dying from a car accident are approximately 1 in 6700. So, you've essentially just told them to undergo the risk of an adverse reaction with chances of approximately 1 in 1000 instead, to try mitigate what you deemed 'miniscule' chances of experiencing. Everything is a calculated risk. Your reasoning here didn't match you original train of thought.

I have tried almost all methods of contraception over the years so contrary to what other people in this thread think, I do actually know what I'm talking about.

Anecdotes don't make for a strong argument at the best of times. Giving clinical advice should be in consideration of evidence-based practice. A useful thing to look through would be what we call the "Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendations", which has four grades and sub-grades to give weighting to evidence.* Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence does not even make it to grade four. This is evidenced by numerous examples scattered throughout the thread, some highlighted and some not.

----------

I didn't tell him he had to. This was me expressing what I would deem as my choice in such a scenario.

...

But we digress. We all just want to help itschilled, who is worried about what is happening and our goal is not argument.

So mate, if you are worried, I'd suggest you weigh up the risks and benefits for your scenario and then decide upon what to do. It sounds like time is a limiting factor here, and you should try and quickly decide upon what needs to be done and then commit to that decision. This should be done after discussion with your partner. Good luck.

This quotation is just a personal suggestion of mine. Once again, my suggestion would be to do what makes you both comfortable and provides adequate peace of mind - which in this case seems to be a worthy consideration. Take care and good luck Fernando.




*Anyone interested, can find a quick reference to what I mean here: http://hsl.lib.umn.edu/biomed/help/levels-evidence-and-grades-recommendations.
In case anyone was wondering, statistics is one of my interests.