Am I over reacting- partner finished inside me

[MyRealBiscuit]

Bit of background, we conceived a child whilst I was using birth control so are now extra cautious and he doesn't finish inside me. He has demonstrated good control of this over 8.5 months of having regular sex but the other night he "got carried away" in his words... why do I feel so crap and out of control about it? Took the morning after pill which I was angry about as I've had it in the past and it really plays havoc with my hormones.

OP, you do know that you can get pregnant from otherwise unprotected sex before he comes, right?

Just use bloody condoms, it's what they're for. And if the useless git does go for the snip, remember you have to use condoms for the recommended time period (I think it's a fairly long while) before going bare-back.

Of course it isn't acceptable to do it deliberately, but human sensations aren't so reliable and predictable that it's not going to happen involuntarily sometimes.

You can still get pregnant even if they don't finish inside you….wrap up

Again, she consented on the provision he didn’t finish inside her. She did not give consent for that.

It’s the same as a woman consenting on the provision the man wears a condom. If he takes it off without her knowledge he no longer has her consent.

It is rape.

Nonsense, she consented to having sex with him, she knows that results in him ejaculating. If he couldn't control himself this one time that doesn't mean it's rape, absolute tripe. As pp have said perhaps condoms are the answer as no man on the planet can control his ejaculating every single time.

It's foolish to expect any man to reliably withdraw- and it's a shit method of contraception as there is fluid released earlier on.

Contraception exists for both sexes.

Use it- or get a vasectomy{ if a man} or sterilised if a woman {tubes tied} - contraception is easily and freely available these days- it's not like the early years of the last century.

She did not consent and he knew that but chose to ignore it. It’s as simple as that.

Yes I'm taking that particularly horrible quote to its logical conclusion to point out how ridiculous it is...

You have to draw the line somewhere, and the line is drawn where the woman hasn't consented to a man ejaculating inside her, in spite of horrible comments about it being like not allowing a child to eat a chocolate bar

No. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22281457

She did consent to having sex with him. Everyone knows how that ends wear a condom. It really is horrendous people throwing the word rape around when there are genuine victims of rape.

We used the withdrawal method and I still got pregnant (I wasn't on other birth control and the pregnancy wasn't a problem, it was just a little sooner than we had intended). My point being that whether he ejaculates or not inside you there is the risk of pregnancy just through intercourse.

If you genuinely are worried about becoming pregnant right now and the fear of the birth control you are using failing it might be worth talking to a doctor about more reliable options. Everyone is just human and sometimes a moment can get away from someone even with the best intentions so this isn't a reliable option in the long term.

In reply to "the delay " in your partner ejaculations, this is VERY unreliable, as some sperm is released beforehand. I understand that this is a belts and braces situation but (consent aside) as others say he must use a condom if you want to be double sure.

Men have ''pre ejaculation'' sperm released.

It's a desperately useless method of ''contraception''.

Hence why places where there is no legal birth control have such massive families.

Withdrawal method doesn't work.

No. It's rape. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22281457

God help your sons!!

Don’t be so ridiculous 🙄

I don't have a son... and I would be educating him about the law on consent if I did have one. Do you tell yours that raping a woman is like eating a chocolate bar? Has to be one of the most revolting analogies I've seen in a while.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22281457

A woman allowing a man to have penetrative sex without using a condom is foolish in the extreme unless she wants a pregnancy.

I agree with @Whippetlovely . It's not ''rape'' - she should have insisted upon condoms, and the man was an idiot for not wearing one.

Only on Mumsnet... a male looks at a woman 'That's rape!''

It makes a mockery of those who genuinely have been attacked and raped.

And a lawyer's opinion, not mine:

Definition of rape
Judges were told that the man had "ejaculated before she could say or do anything about it", and she had become pregnant.
Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Mr Justice Fulford and Mr Justice Sweeney at a High Court hearing in London, added: "She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based.
"Accordingly her consent was negated.
"Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina.
"In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape."

You might find it 'foolish' but it's still rape.

You might also find a woman drinking too much and being raped 'foolish', still rape.

You might find a woman being raped after walking alone at night 'foolish', still rape.

It's not suddenly legal even if you think that it is 'foolish'.

Well OP ought to get the police involved if she thinks it's ''rape''.

Anyone with the most basic education knows that there is pre-cum when penetrative sex takes place.

Honest to god, most women in the country have been raped then. Most of us have had an accident in our lifetimes when the male has got a bit over excited.

Your concerns around contraception are a bit of a red herring, I think. If your agreement is that he doesn’t finish inside you, then he doesn’t get to finish inside you. It really is that black and white. You haven’t consented, so he doesn’t get to do it.

If I were you, I’d be fucking furious. I’m sorry, OP.

Sure. And rape trials as well as the police force are full of people like you who try to excuse rape by calling women foolish. That's why the conviction rate is to low - because getting a jury of 12 people who actually know what the law is in England and Wales is surprisingly difficult.

I think you are misconstruing this. Judgement says:

"In short, there is evidence that he deliberately ignored the basis of her consent to penetration as a manifestation of his control over her."

That’s very different to had every intent of sticking to the agreed terms but didn’t get the warning he usually gets (& fully expected to have) of how close he was so failed to withdraw.