Damn the underwear; full speed ahead!
February 14, 2009 9:07 PM   Subscribe

Can sperm in precum fight their way through two layers of underwear? What about two layers of underwear, and two layers of pajamas? Does the material matter? Realistically, what are the chances of an accidental pregnancy from, say, rubbing a penis against a vagina if they're both very aroused, but also within underwear?

Assume I'm quite virile.
posted by anonymous to Health & Fitness (27 answers total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
Remote. Relax.
posted by airplain at 9:11 PM on February 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


This website suggests that such an event is highly unlikely, if even possible. I don't believe there are any recorded instances of this happening.

I would put the chances at "Slim to none, with Slim having left town." Unless there is penetration the odds of pregnancy are vanishingly small, and the odds of pregnancy without actual skin-to-skin contact are probably statistically insignificant.
posted by valkyryn at 9:13 PM on February 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


You may be quite virile, but with four layers of fabric, your chances of impregnating a woman without even ejaculating are roughly equivalent to the probability that you will be struck and killed by a metallic blue Ford Mustang being driven by a man of mixed Greek-Russian descent named Tobias. On a Tuesday.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:20 PM on February 14, 2009 [27 favorites]


This is one of those questions that bears a certain caveat, that some MeFites find difficult to understand.

Because there are so many variables involved (how close? how much? time of month?); because there are different definitions for everything (what does 'rubbing' mean to you?); and because it's a binary outcome (she either gets pregnant or she doesn't) ... you have to understand that the chances of what you described is exceedingly remote ... the odds are never going to be a flat "zero."

It could be an infinitesimal chance. But it will NOT be zero. Given enough events, enough time ... oh, it'll happen. Whether it happens to you is a different question.

So, you wanna roll the dice? Are you ready to roll the dice?

Take appropriate steps now to deal with this. It won't be long before "come on, baby, just let me get close to you" turns into "come on, baby, let's go for it," so you should be considering all the options and all the odds. This is what adults do.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:23 PM on February 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


I do NOT advocate unsafe sex. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS use a freaking condom.

There, got that out of the way.

Research indicates there is probably no sperm that could make anyone pregnant in pre-cum. Check the wikipedia page on birth control for cites. i think the whole thing may be a sex-ed myth created with the semi-laudable intention of getting people to use condoms and not rely on "pulling out."
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:28 PM on February 14, 2009 [2 favorites]


to wit.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:31 PM on February 14, 2009


second study, same conclusion
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:32 PM on February 14, 2009


drjimmy11: I've seen papers that conclude that in certain circumstances there are viable sperm in pre-ejaculate, however if you've pissed since the last time you ejaculated, it's not likely.

Basically you have to spew and get aroused again without peeing.
posted by wierdo at 9:33 PM on February 14, 2009


Your homework assignment: buy a lottery ticket. Any game you like. I predict you win $0. But the jackpot is big, so maybe it's worth playing, right?

Everybody has times in their life when a pregnancy would be like winning an anti-lottery. You're apparently concerned about this. So cover up. Don't bullshit yourself about "what are the chances."
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 9:45 PM on February 14, 2009


You better start buying diapers.

OH...you didn't like that answer? Then why the heck are you not practicing safe sex. Besides sperm leading to pregnancy, you are giving this girl your biological fluid. BIOLOGICAL FLUID.

Sure you've swapped spit, but are you ready to swap POTENT biological fluid? If so, are you ready to face pregnancy and the decisions you will face?

That said, I agree with Cool Papa Bell. Watch the movie Quincenera; that'll scare you.

In order for you to impregnate her, not only would the sperm have to fight its way through your undergarments, pajamas, another pair of pajamas, and another pair of undergarments, and THEN into her vagina. And even when it gets there...it still needs to go further.

This has nothing to do with "virility", it has to do with sperm motility and survivability.

Good luck and be safe next time...for everyone's sake.
posted by hal_c_on at 9:53 PM on February 14, 2009


Zero. Chill. Also, buy condoms, learn how to use them, and get your freak on.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:57 PM on February 14, 2009


Consider: What if you feel asleep in a spooning position and had a nocturnal emission? Does anyone advocate sleeping with a condom on?
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:03 PM on February 14, 2009 [5 favorites]


Your chances of impregnating a woman without even ejaculating are roughly equivalent to the probability that you will be struck and killed by a metallic blue Ford Mustang being driven by a man of mixed Greek-Russian descent named Tobias. On a Tuesday.

That said, stop wasting time calculating ridiculous odds and just do the obvious thing so that you don't need to worry about this.

Look both ways before crossing the street. And use condoms.
posted by rokusan at 1:47 AM on February 15, 2009


The baby is not yours.
posted by caddis at 1:56 AM on February 15, 2009 [33 favorites]


All of your "clothed" scenarios speak to almost impossible odds. But you said "rubbing a penis against a vagina" and that changes things quite a bit. It's still remote, but taking clothing out of the equation is a totally different thing. There are far too many variables for us to decide, and even for you to determine. But any way is unlikely.
posted by zardoz at 2:13 AM on February 15, 2009


What caddis said. Or she's late for a different reason.
posted by Thistledown at 8:34 AM on February 15, 2009


I recommend just taking your clothes off and putting on a condom and stop worrying.
posted by mezamashii at 8:47 AM on February 15, 2009


I'm in the chorus of "highly unlikely." Really, these people aren't having sex. (By my definition and by most others, I think.) Why the condom talk? Sure, there's a teeny tiny risk involved, I suppose, but...four layers of clothing. No ejaculate. If you have sex, use a condom, but if "next time" is similarly clothed, you don't have to bother. I don't think they need to be scared into or out of anything.

When you DO have sex, be safe about it. Know what that means -- you can look up how STIs are transmitted and different forms of birth control online. A good site in my experience is scarleteen.com. Their Birth Control Bingo page might, in particular, be helpful to you -- it answers questions about which activities have risks of pregnancy and which don't, as well as STI risks.
posted by mismatched at 8:55 AM on February 15, 2009


J.D.?
posted by roystgnr at 8:59 AM on February 15, 2009 [3 favorites]



If you (as a female) are late, and this is the only sexual contact you've had, then there are a host of things that could be causing delayed menstruation, but make yourself feel better and get a preggers test. Better yet, get yourself to a Planned Parenthood office; get an exam, a test, and some reliable, accurate information and prevention tools.

If you are a male, and someone is claiming that you've impregnated them and this is the only sexual contact you've had, then I would demand a genetic test before I accepted responsibility.

It is seriously, significantly, statistically unlikely that this sort of contact could cause pregnancy, but it's not completely impossible.
posted by dejah420 at 10:57 AM on February 15, 2009


The answer to the question is that it's extremely unlikely.

People who advocate condoms, please be aware that they are not totally and completely effective. They have known failure rates.
posted by jasper411 at 11:12 AM on February 15, 2009


However, the failure rate for not wearing a condom is significantly higher. Therefore, I and others will continue to advocate their use.
posted by punishinglemur at 11:45 AM on February 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


"People who advocate condoms" are, perhaps, in this case going a little overboard. With regards to actual sex, though, "People who advocate condoms" are every intelligent adult. So please look into safe sex before things progress that far; from the question I suspect that you're going to be aware and safe about it.
posted by you're a kitty! at 1:12 PM on February 15, 2009


I would be more concerned about her hand touching you, then touching herself, or your hand - you get the idea. Also remote but somewhat less so.
posted by megatherium at 2:05 PM on February 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Cool Papa Bell: It could be an infinitesimal chance. But it will NOT be zero... So, you wanna roll the dice? Are you ready to roll the dice?... you should be considering all the options and all the odds. This is what adults do.

The reason "some Mefites" find this attitude difficult to understand is that it is absurd. You take far bigger risks every time you walk down the street (and that's even if we assume, for the purposes of argument, that having a baby and getting killed by a car are both equally awful eventualities, which of course they are not).
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 2:39 PM on February 15, 2009


The reason "some Mefites" find this attitude difficult to understand is that it is absurd.

Sigh. I expected as much.

Look, absurd is not zero.

What's really absurd is your pedantic equivocation.

You must walk down the street (e.g. to go to school, to go to work, etc). These are risks one must take as a requirement of everyday life. You have nearly zero control over that.

On the other hand, the decision to bump uglies is a choice. It's recreation. (It's awesome recreation, but still ... no one's pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to bump uglies). You extert complete control over this (e.g. bump uglies, or don't bump uglies).

To make your statement into an analogy, you're telling me that I may as well ignore the risk of being eaten by sharks because it happens so infrequently. Instead, I would tell you that one of your options to reduce risk is to choose not to go swimming in the ocean. Or choose to go swimming in an area where there are no sharks.

In other words, don't rely on a bullet-proof vest. Take the bullets out of the gun.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:53 PM on February 15, 2009


There are some ridiculous answers up in here. If a couple is seriously worried about getting pregnant from clothed genital contact, then a condom is not enough protection. I'd suggest implanted hormonal birth control or a copper IUD in addition.
posted by muddgirl at 9:51 AM on February 16, 2009


« Older Why did prominent politicians start shaving circa...   |   Kewpie Mayonnaise: way better than Hellman's Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.