MovieChat Forums > The Sessions (2012) Discussion > Protection? (POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

Protection? (POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

posted 12 years ago by Anaxareta
6 replies | jump to latest

Mark says he has never had sex with anybody, so we suppose he can't have venereal disease. I didn't see Cheryl taking any condom during all the sessions, so I think they didn't use protection. Do you think they used condom in the coitus? He cums inside her, but wearing condom? Maybe my post is exaggerated, but I thought Cheryl was negligent, not only for her own health, but for Mike's! She could perfectly have a venerean illness and transmit it to him. Well, maybe I'm a bit obsessed with this kind of diseases, but I found it shocking.

[–] rstrzal-1 12 years ago

To be fair it is never discussed what kind of measures of protection or birth control she's using. We also don't know what her client cycle is like. It may be that he was her only client that month or that year and as a professional she might as well be screening for things regularly still. Which is not say it's risk free, but it minimizes some risks. Having sex with other people by design carries risks that you can't by design completely get rid of. It's possible they wore a condom. It's possible she discussed the risks with him and they didn't. I can see how given his sensitivity, adding extra manipulation to the mix might've not been practical from the point of his goals.
http://blog.lawyeronwheels.org We help! Disability, law and inspiration

[–] chuck-526 12 years ago

The culture was very different back then. Lots of things that seemed perfectly normal then are shocking today.

[–] Trackmaster 12 years ago

Well, she was probably post-menapause, so there would be no risk of pregnancy. And obviously he was a virgin, so he wouldn't have VD, and she is probably tested regularly.

[–] swinggold 12 years ago

"The culture was very different back then. Lots of things that seemed perfectly normal then are shocking today. "

I agree with this statement mostly though I do think it was not only negligent for the film not to address the subject of protections, mainly condoms, but also disrespectful to her husband and marriage which makes her look like an awful person. Seems irresponsible to not make mention of it in this day and age, even if it's not completely accurate to the time frame of the movie.

[–] karmagini 12 years ago

The movie was very direct about every other aspect of the sexual encounters, so it appears they didn't use any protection. Plus even though he's a virgin doesn't mean that he doesn't have an STD like herpes or HIV.

It was crazy for her not to use protection! For someone who's basically a teacher about sex, this would have been an important lesson to teach to her clients. But also for her own safety & that of her husband (assuming they have unprotected sex).

www.CreativeBlossoming.com

[–] DanS 12 years ago

At the time of their encounter the retroviral cause of AIDS had only been determined within the previous 2 years. It was still pretty much thought to be a disease of homosexual men. Rightly or wrongly I'm fairly confident that THAT particular concern never crossed their minds.