HIV and giving oral sex?

[Soilwork]

And may I add

 

[3stripes]

Funny, I dont' see anything on that page or any of the links that disagrees with me.

Funny? Only shows how close minded you are. You've obviously made your decision and dont want to see anything that conflicts with your beliefs.

Very top of the page I linked too:

READ FIRST:

British Survey Suggests HIV Infection Through Oral Sex Is Small, but Real, Risk (August 5, 2004)
A large survey of HIV-positive gay men in the United Kingdom finds that about 3% say oral sex was their only possible risk factor for HIV
From aidsmap.com

I guess you didnt read, first or at all.

Oh, may I add: :thewave:

 

[Soilwork]

Um... yeah, that agrees pretty much with what I said... the risk is very low. It's not zero, although a few studies have found that.

Risk goes up if he cums in your mouth after your wisdom tooth extraction.

 

[Diego_Ryan]

Um... yeah, that agrees pretty much with what I said... the risk is very low. It's not zero, although a few studies have found that.

Risk goes up if he cums in your mouth after your wisdom tooth extraction.

No one is disputing that, we all know the risk is low. The problem I have with your replies is that you’re making it seem like it’s not too serious. You’re basically saying the risk is so low that we shouldn’t worry about it or even use protection and you used those 0 infection studies to emphasis that (other studies do show infection, so which one do we believe) Also, you forget that HIV is not the only STD, there are others that can be spread through unprotected oral. In fact a study was published a few weeks ago that links HPV (causes cervical cancer in women) with throat cancer in men and women. The study showed that it’s possible for you to become infected with HPV through unprotected oral sex and that HPV can cause throat cancer.

Also, it's interesting you mentioned the 0 infection studies all occurred in Europe. There are a certain percentage of Europeans (I think it was 10%, not sure though), who are immune to the virus, the virus can't replicate in their bodies because they lack the CD4 molecule. Scientists believe that those who survived the Black Death in the middle ages have this gene that protects them from HIV. So, if it can't replicate I assume there won't be detectable levels and this might be why there weren't any infections in the studies you provided. I know it's all an assumption in my part, but it sounds plausible. If only about 3% become infected in other studies it's possible that those 3% that usually become infected could have the gene that protects them from HIV (if their from Europe)?

 

[Soilwork]

(San Francisco isn't in Europe. Oh wait... are you Miss Teen USA?)

 

[3stripes]

Um... yeah, that agrees pretty much with what I said... the risk is very low. It's not zero, although a few studies have found that.

Studies that include only 19000 oral sex encounters when the risk for oral sex is estimated to be 1/10,000 - 1/50,000??

If the risk is 1/50,0000 then a study where only 19,000 oral sex encounters occurred that study is unlikely to witness a transmission - might as well have studied sunflowers growing or ostriches burying their heads in the sand. Specially when a number of those oral sex encounters were cunnilingus, thats even lower risk.

you CAN get HIV from oral sex but the evidence is anecdotal at best.

You can get hit by mugged in New York, no studies have shown a risk but the evidence is anecdotal at best.

 

[Diego_Ryan]

(San Francisco isn't in Europe. Oh wait... are you Miss Teen USA?)

And where do most Americans come from? Europe of course; remember America is a country of immigrants.

Also, why did you ignore the rest of my reply? HIV is not the only STD or do you not care about those since most of them can be cured?

 

[Soilwork]

And where do most Americans come from? Europe of course; remember America is a country of immigrants.

Also, why did you ignore the rest of my reply? HIV is not the only STD or do you not care about those since most of them can be cured?

You obviously haven't been to the cultural melting pot that is SF recently.

But anyway.. the point of this thread was about HIV transmission through oral sex.

I stated my opinion and provided links to back me up.

This is obviosuly someone's agenda getting in the way and it's boring me.

Know the risks and dont' think that a single encounter of oral sex with a guy you dont' know is going to kill you. Accept the risk and know what risk you're willing to take.

Get tested and deal with anything that happens.

But dont' be afraid of sex.... I'm a bit worried that people were so busy attacking me that they didn't see the post from the guy who was afraid that HIV just manifested out of mid air and could he have caught it from someone who wasn't infected.

the misinformation and hysterica and panic out there is terrifying.

 

[RicanDAB]

Oh man, you're guys are scaring me half to death. Let me say this: if both guys have no cuts in their mouth and both are HIV negative then could HIV be contracted at all? I cummed in a guy's mouth, does that put me at risk?

Um... if you're both HIV negative he can bleed in your mouth and you can't catch it.

You also can't get pregnant from kissing a boy in a bathing suit.

But dont' be afraid of sex.... I'm a bit worried that people were so busy attacking me that they didn't see the post from the guy who was afraid that HIV just manifested out of mid air and could he have caught it from someone who wasn't infected.

And it bears re-emphasizing ... it's incredible how misinformed some people are about HIV even in 2007!

 

[SexyLiciousBoy]

I think im never gonna have sex ever again....lol, this kind of stuff is too scary.

 

[Soilwork]

I think im never gonna have sex ever again....lol, this kind of stuff is too scary.

See ?

 

[3stripes]

But anyway.. the point of this thread was about HIV transmission through oral sex.

I stated my opinion and provided links to back me up.

Links to back it up? as in one eyed view of things.

You missed a suitable link - seems to be right up your alley: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

 

[Diego_Ryan]

You obviously haven't been to the cultural melting pot that is SF recently.

But anyway.. the point of this thread was about HIV transmission through oral sex.

I stated my opinion and provided links to back me up.

This is obviosuly someone's agenda getting in the way and it's boring me.

Know the risks and dont' think that a single encounter of oral sex with a guy you dont' know is going to kill you. Accept the risk and know what risk you're willing to take.

Get tested and deal with anything that happens.

But dont' be afraid of sex.... I'm a bit worried that people were so busy attacking me that they didn't see the post from the guy who was afraid that HIV just manifested out of mid air and could he have caught it from someone who wasn't infected.

the misinformation and hysterica and panic out there is terrifying.

Well, I wouldn't risk it with a stranger. Its sad too see people who prefer pleasure over safety. This reminds me of the gay men from the 80s who refused to practice safe sex until the doctors proved HIV was spread through sex, so the bathhouses remained open.

 

[luminum]

I suppose you could also not risk driving a car for fear someone would hit you.

The point is that in all trials shown, HIV was not contracted by oral sex alone. A survey stating that gay men believe that was the reason why the got HIV is only a survey, not a trial. In fact, in many critiques of those studies, researchers later found that some of the men who stated that they had only had oral sex eventually confessed that they had anal sex as well. It's been proven that HIV contraction is possible, but the risk is very low and can be lowered or increased based on action taken from that point forward.

It is important to always recognize the context of risk, instead of writing off the varying degrees of risk as equivalent "risk."

So yes, HIV transfer through the mucus membranes of gums with no microdermabrasions in them is low...very very low, but not 0. However, it's also important to realize that having pretty standard oral sex that is unprotected is not a reason to start panicking.

Finally, combining the two concepts in important. The fact is that you can't always be sure that you do not have some minor cut in your gums, and if you're doing it with a stranger and the condom's there, then why not take precaution? But if you don't have one and you still have oral sex, you have very very very little reason to wake up the next day and piss yourself because you think you stood a good chance of contracting HIV, even if your partner was positive.

As for other STDs, that's where you should be concerned.

It's unfortunate that risk isn't understood well enough by people in general (and myself included) so that we all have a good internal measure of where we stand in terms of health risks. It's also unfortunate that the state of sexual health education and awareness is so deplorable that it's giving way to hysteria, especially over something like two HIV negative men having protected sex together.

 

[jockboy01]

A survey stating that gay men believe that was the reason why the got HIV is only a survey, not a trial.

True, but it's the best you will get in this circumstance as a randomized double blind trial isn't really ethical at all.

So the facts are as follows....

1) If both people are HIV negative then the risk of HIV transmission is ZERO.

2) You can get HIV by having unprotected oral sex with HIV positive people but the risk is VERY low. But it is still a risk.

3) There are other (may I add, treatable) diseases that are much more likely to be transmitted during unprotected oral sex.

And lastly, I don't know if I'm going to clean up the flames... I'm at work right now and don't have time. But if edited soon, don't be surprised.

 

[AdmiraalW238]

If your doctor says that oral sex is just as risky as anal sex... you need a new doctor. The one you have is an idiot who speaks without knowing the facts.

you CAN get HIV from oral sex but the evidence is anecdotal at best.

REDACTED

Know the risks, accept the consequences.

OK, here is the spiel that I would give someone who phoned the NSW HIV/AIDS Information Line asking about oral sex and HIV.

Oral sex is classified as a low risk activity. The risk increases if you have open bleeding cuts in your mouth, or bleeding gums, or mouth ulcers. If you are just on the receiving the risk is none existent. The risk, however, is that you could contract an STI, either gono, chalmydia or syphilis. For your own piece of mind you should consider getting at STI check.

 

[jockboy01]

Actually to say that the receiving end has no risk isn't quite true. But the risk is even lower for sure.

 

[Soilwork]

um.. Jockboy IS a doctor.

 

[TygreBryte]

No one is disputing that, we all know the risk is low. The problem I have with your replies is that you’re making it seem like it’s not too serious. You’re basically saying the risk is so low that we shouldn’t worry about it or even use protection and you used those 0 infection studies to emphasis that (other studies do show infection, so which one do we believe) Also, you forget that HIV is not the only STD, there are others that can be spread through unprotected oral. In fact a study was published a few weeks ago that links HPV (causes cervical cancer in women) with throat cancer in men and women. The study showed that it’s possible for you to become infected with HPV through unprotected oral sex and that HPV can cause throat cancer.

Also, it's interesting you mentioned the 0 infection studies all occurred in Europe. There are a certain percentage of Europeans (I think it was 10%, not sure though), who are immune to the virus, the virus can't replicate in their bodies because they lack the CD4 molecule. Scientists believe that those who survived the Black Death in the middle ages have this gene that protects them from HIV. So, if it can't replicate I assume there won't be detectable levels and this might be why there weren't any infections in the studies you provided. I know it's all an assumption in my part, but it sounds plausible. If only about 3% become infected in other studies it's possible that those 3% that usually become infected could have the gene that protects them from HIV (if their from Europe)?

I don't think you understood what he said, from his first word to his last.

 

[jockboy01]

Is it not the CCR5 chemokine receptor molecule which is lacking in those resistant to the infection, and not the CD4 molecule?

The exact reason for this apparent immunity is not known for sure. But you are correct in that I don't think anybody is missing the CD4 receptor (not molecule to get technical) as that is what defines the helper T cell which is vital for immunity in general.