I can see why. That's not even a proper word.

owned

Incubuss: Technically, it is... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whilst

Yeah man, you spelled whilst wrong and you have to consider the fact that this FML is from the UK. English speakers from the British Isles use far more interesting vocabulary and syntax than Americans do. Don't hate on it. I'd bet he's just putting a superior education to good use.

He meant 'whilist' is not a proper word...

OP: "It's not what it looks like.........I'm holding these for a friend"

#16, you fail. Try reading slower.

WHAT'CHU TALKIN' BOUT WHILIST?

Actually, incubuss that is a word: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/that

ur all idiots. thats a common phrase in the UK open ur mind to other cultures geez

AHAHHAHAHAHAHA

its english you dumb **** im american and know that...

This mean #1 hates the British.

It means #1 is a bloody wanker or a dosy git. Look THOSE up.

my god do we really have to have this conversation everytime somebody uses a word like whilst in a post. its a word. get over it.

then don't complain about the OP's grammar! whilst is a superior form of while

so I'm guessing that "whilst" is the new "proceeded"

lmao

ya awkward moments

The word "Whilst" is actually very proper. I have no idea wht you are looking at for you to say it is not... unless you are talking about the one who said "whilist"...

-1 me too -16 I cannot believe u just posted a link to the dictionary

I hate people who can't spell.

You mean you hate English people who say that because we are capable of using correct grammar?

Well "They're for a friend" is actually an excuse alot of people use, so it'll be tough convincing her that they are in fact, for a friend.

He could just take her with him to go give the friend the condoms. Problem solved!

Still awkward at that moment. "Um honey, it's not what it looks like." "I'm buying them for a friend, honest." "He's just too shy to buy them." She'd probably walk out at that moment not giving him a chance to explain. Besides, no where in the FML does it say the friend is waiting outside the store. The friend could have called and asked.

yeah and the OP (if he was cheating) could have easily got his friend to lie and say 'yeah theyre for me...' so it could still cause major arguments. FYL, op.

ok #2, lets take a similar situation that most people are familiar with as they see it on tv or whatever all the time Parents: "Can you tell what the hell were you doing with these drugs." Child: "oh it's not mine, I'm just holding it for a friend" (complete bull shit and everyone knows it) so ya OP should tell his fiance it's for a friend, she'll definately understand (sarcasm)

real life != sit coms if they're engaged then she should trust each other/know each other enough to know when "it's for a friend" is BS or not... if you're in a relationship where you can't trust the other one because they lie to you a lot then the FML's on you.

agreed, I think that the op could've just explained what happened.

I think it's because it's the usual crap excuse. It's like if your dog ate your homework. Your teacher isn't gonna believe you.

what op are u a fuken mormen. dommys ftw

No kidding. "Oh, hi honey. Yeah, my mate asked me to buy these for him – he's too shy to even get them himself.". You then proceed to walk out and hand them to him, confirming your story (or let her tag along when you go give them to him, if he's further away). Anyone who can't accept that explanation is likely very insecure or paranoid, and you should be very cautious of being in such a committed relationship with them.

1. She could be on the pill or some other way to prevent pregnancies 2. They could be virgins, but it seems unlikely in this case since OP states they don't use it...which implies they've had sex. And they may want a kid *shrugs* they're getting married after all :P OP: I hope your fiancee is trusting...you can't have a relationship without trust right? :D

She might be on the pill, but they should still use condoms. The pill isn't 100% effective either, even if you take it at the same time every day. And even if they want kids, they should get married first. If you're not willing to commit to a marriage (or can't afford one), you shouldn't be having kids. They're a lot bigger (and more expensive) commitment.

I knew people were going to start bitching about the OP not using condoms. GET OVER IT. It's their choice, not yours. The point of the FML was NOT "oh, darn, I don't use condoms, I'm risking STDs and pregnancy. Shit."

Who are you to judge if they have a kid before marriage? I mean, I agree with your comment. But a lot of people who are engaged (especially with the marriage date in sight) start having sex without condoms. I would assume by that point both couples have been tested for STDs and have the commitment to get married and raise their children. I mean, they are engaged after all. P.S. Hi Rye. :)

To add to that, it's entirely possible that she may already be pregnant, and that is why they are getting married and they don't use birth control. Regardless. They're in a long term committed relationship and have obviously decided to accept whatever chance of pregnancy there is with whatever birth control they do, or do not use.

Okay lets learn something here today, and that is......condoms arnt 100% effective either! Secondly marriage doesnt demonstrate your commitment if the divorce rate in many countries is at nearly 50%. Thirdly how does a big ceremony and a piece of paper demonstrate your commitment? Seriously Rye you cant just assume everyone else holds your ideals about marriage and apply them to other people. Lots of people now have children without marriage and are just as happy and successful as those that dont. But this is an FML as the OP does has a really shit situation to deal with, with a person he obviously cares deeply about due to his engagement.

Yeah, they're only, like, 99% effective. That's totally unsafe, guys.

Maybe she uses the sponge or the cap. Why is everyone so judgemental?

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. While you should always use condoms when you're in a new relationship, it is NOT NECESSARY once you've been in the relationship for a long time (minimum 6 months) and have both tested clean for STDs, and she's on the pill. Obviously, you must be monogamous and trust each other... the guy has to also trust that she knows how to take the pill on time every day, but saying the OP should be using condoms when he's ENGAGED is ridiculous. For all you know, the OP could have a vasectomy, or his fiance could be sterile for whatever reason, or she might be on Implanon, which is a birth control which has a higher effectiveness rate than even vasectomies. OP, I hope your fiance isn't a crazy bitch and didn't flip out on you. If I had been in her position, I would've been suspicious too, but calm enough to allow you to explain. If she flipped out, rethink marrying her.

Actually, condoms are between 95% and 97% affective, the pill is 99.9% affective. If you are only using condoms you are more likely to get pregnant than if you just use the pill. Lots of people use other forms of contraception, particularly if you are in a long term relationship and plan on having a lot of sex, simply because condoms are highly inconvient and offer a much lower level of protection than hormonal treatments or implants such as the coil. If you both know you are STD free, then condoms in a long term relationship are simply not practical.

if you are in a committed relationship with one person and you both have been tested and found clean of STDs and the girl is on the pill then its not a big deal not to use condoms. clearly they understand the risks, and they clearly are close to getting married. not a big deal.

Who gives a crap what they use! It's none of our damn business!

what if they are two girls then why would they need condoms? duh!

I get that this is from 2009, but I thought it was common knowledge even than that condoms are only 81% effective...

You are a special brand of stupid.

#11 one of them may be sterile

yeah i second. or its a fake FML. she doesnt trust you, then you cant have a relationship.

No!

Depends. Are one or both of you ugly? If so, bag it up.

who do u trust?

now this is a worthy FML

Are you dumb or can't you read? He was at the register.

Lmao..

Once again, you have to understand British expressions. Sure I've never heard "queuing at the till" before but if you think about what the words mean at all it's obvious that it means "in line at the register".

At the register IN THE CONDOM SECTION/STORE I would assume. I mean, is the only register in british stores up at the front so little kids can see all the naughty sex toys people are buying?

And I was joking. I understand that it probably was in the pharmacy area or just up at the front. I'm sorry if you can't understand my American way of thinking, as I can understand yours.

It is fiancée, not wife, my bad.

In British stores, we only generally have the one checkout, no separate ones for different things.

@ seanreddog: It's not his wife- it's his fiancée. She wasn't in the condom section- she saw him in line. What are you doing on fml? Go do your Reading Comprehension homework! That sucks, OP. Good luck with that.