Ron, sweet, I'd rather eat the pie and suck your bare dick. I'll show you my certification of negative HIV test beforehand. And if you don't believe me when I haven't had sex a window period before the test, then (with so little trust in my word) you probably shouldn't be having sex with me at all.
Or even giving me pie.
But what if I was HIV positive and had a high viral load in my sperm? Would you still be willing to perform unprotected oral sex on me, and allow me to ejaculate in your mouth?
*Sends you a fruitcake*
RE: "Ron, HIV isn't the problem, your perception of it is."
Haha, again, I'm just the messenger, reposting the CDC's perception of it.
RE: "Based on what you've written so far, I gather this is something that weighs on your mind."
I've already indicated above that it doesn't, it's simply another risk to contend with.
RE: "I also believe there's nothing any of us can say to convince you that the risks associated with oral sex are so small as to be almost negligible."
That's very true. When I'm presented with such clearly stated facts from the CDC, I have to formulate my opinions based on what they say, rather than contradictory info from an anonymous person on the Internet.
RE: "You seem to be extremely selective about what type of information you deem sufficiently accurate. It's classic confirmation bias. You seem to only assimilate data that conforms to your fears and predispositions."
That's not true, at all. You can put any kind of spin on it that you want to, but the facts are as cut and dried as they can be. The CDC is at the very top of the Internet food chain in terms of accuracy, so there's no way that relying on info they provide can legitimately be characterized as being, "Extremely selective."
Again, the position they've chosen to convey to the general public about unprotected oral sex is that, "No one knows exactly what the degree of risk is." The fact that you've totally disregarded what they say constitutes the real "confirmation bias" in this discussion. And reducing the risk to a dozen "confirmed" cases as you've done indicates that you're the one who has assimilated data that conforms to your fears and predispositions.
Because by your own admission, you, "Used to be hysterical about this," to the point that you, "Even sought counseling for it, which didn't help much." So it's understandable that you would latch onto anything you could in medical school that would enable you to rationalize your destructive fears away.
RE: "And btw, to answer your questions, I HAVE performed oral sex on someone who, at the time, I thought was HIV negative. He wasn't. And I didn't get infected."
The fact that you didn't get infected doesn't surprise me at all, even if your partner wasn't on antiviral drugs at the time. Because the CDC states, "Evidence suggests that the risk is less than that of unprotected anal or vaginal sex." And if the info sentientoak posted is accurate, there's a 10% chance you won't become infected even if you're injected with confirmed HIV tainted blood.
I'll definitely concede the risk of contracting HIV from unprotected oral sex is extremely low. But technically, it's still a form of Russian roulette. And according to the best info the CDC currently has, the number of chambers in the "gun" is unknown, period.
Generally speaking, you never know for sure who's HIV positive and has a high viral load in their sperm. And since you could be infected the first time you have unprotected oral sex or the 24th time, where do you draw the line? Do you advocate totally ignoring the risk of getting HIV from oral sex? If so, would you perform oral sex on someone you know is infected with HIV and has a high viral load in their sperm?
RE: "Back then I thought I was simply lucky, but now I know luck had nothing to do with it. It was all a matter of statistical probability, which skew heavily towards non-infection."
I disagree 100%. Since "statistical probability" can nail you the first time you have unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier just as easily as the 24th time, luck has everything to do with it. And since the CDC states, "no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is," it's a big mistake to rationalize that it's skewed "heavily" towards non-infection.
I don't know what the current stats are, but every day in 2009, almost 7,200 additional people were infected with HIV around the world, and close to 5,000 people died from AIDS-related causes. So based on that, I think taking precautions is more than justified for people who don't want to play oral sex roulette.
RE: "What finally got me over HIV phobia was information. Some things, like scientific fact, aren't really up for debate."
If you've got some scientific facts from a reputable source that will contradict CDC's position that, "No one knows exactly what the degree of risk is," I'd love to see it. But I can't just take the word of an anonymous person in a forum.
Your justification of your fears ........is well justified!
Since no one else has been willing to answer this question so far, maybe you will: Would you knowingly engage in oral sex with someone with gum disease who's infected with HIV and has a high viral load in their sperm?
That's precisely why it's on an obscure web page that few people venture to, because the CDC doesn't want the general public to misinterpret it and get a false sense of reassurance. The reality about contracting HIV from oral sex is that, "The risk is less than that of unprotected anal or vaginal sex," and,
"no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is."
And the quoted sentences above are from the same govt agency that published the "reassuring" stats. So why would they say, "no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is," if their "10,000 separate sex acts" figure is considered reliable for predicting infection risks? It's illogical and makes no sense. Send them an email or call their toll free number if you really think they're telling a blatant lie when they say, "no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is."
