Risk of oral sex versus car accidents

[metta]

hey assholes of the world
its never easy to lose someone
but
its' easier to lose some one by their (stupid choice) of a sexual experience than it is to lose a friend /partner to a drunk/druggie/incapacitated or whatever..i've been there...some pains have no end. they even sneak up and debilitate you months later when youare walking in a park or on a beach or just trying to have a good day. don't try to subscribe your answer to everything 'till you've worn my shoes.

sorry guys this one pushed a button and i over re-acted.. dying should be done by very old people that are ready to go, not young people (anyone lwss than 120) or maybe 130. i've lost 2 in the last 2 months and am feeling so ripped up that if i wasn't a guy i'd probably waste a day or so and just cry. damn, i love my friends, i love my friends...life bites sometimes,but why doesit have to take such big bites? ok, tomorrow i'll be back sarcastic and down and that canadian reject, but, today i've gotta donate to a beautiful person who DIED to ealy for anyone to evensay they had a good life.

fuck, i'm going to miss/hurt over marty for a long time...sorry if this brings anyone down...wasn't my intention..i've just gotta blow somewhere and i think i have a FEW friends here that might understand. for anyone that doesn't know me i apologise for soundin g like a freaking drama queen...the rest of you know its' a ad day. love lcm

I'm sorry. I know exactly what it is like to lose your best friend. There is not a day that goes by that I do not miss my best friend and wish that I could be with him. And as for tears....gesh....I could not count the number of times since he past away April 2005. For me, I don't think the "missing him" will ever go away until I die. I guess I have to just accept it as being part of who I am.

Be kind to yourself, give yourself time to grieve, and it's ok to cry, be angry, or yell. I think that it is healthier to release the emotions than to keep them inside.

 

[tbonez]

T-bonez, just because my green light was on doesn't mean I was here. It takes some time for the green light to go off after I disappear. And right now I'm very busy so I dont have a lot of time.

You had enough time to confuse me with someone else and be downright condescending. I'm still more than a little annoyed.

ie. Oral sex is way more risky than driving a car. more people die because more travel in motor vehicles than have BJs. That doesnt make BJs safer.

What about the facts that I posted do you not understand? Do you have some different numbers? Do you think the WHO is just fudging theirs?

Let me recap: 3,221 people were killed in road accidents in the UK...6,242 The number of HIV diagnoses in 2004 from all kinds of sexually activity. For your ..."claim" to be true HALF of all HIV infections would be from oral sex...HALF.

In case you missed it the risk, at the high end is 1 in 2500 cum swallowing blowjobs. The VAST majority of people infected had other underlying health issues that led to the possibility of transmission through oral sex...AND THEY ALL SWALLOWED!

I provided what , as near as I can tell, is the most current, widely accepted closely scrutinized data, not from some random "report" but from the peer reviewed, published American Jornal Epidemiology. Do you have a better source?

"The per-sex-act probability of HIV transmission for unprotected receptive oral intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%."

You stated more than once that:

And that was precisely my point. The relative risk of getting HIV from a blow job is higher than the risk of getting killed in a car accident."?

This is false, no matter how you want to finesse, distract and sidestep.

I posted the numbers. Do you have some other statistics you are hording 'cause I can't find anything that even remotely substantiates you claim.

How many infections do there need to be until you stop calling it "negligible"?

Do you remember posting that?

Are you just going to ignore that fact that your own link used the words 'statistically negligible'?

Can you see how your comment could be VERY offensive?

 

[thewiz]

I don't know why more men don't take advantage of the testing and other services that are available. I know that in some parts of the country there are less opportunities to have testing and know what one's status is but here in DC, the men's clinic offers free testing two nights each week and for a few bucks will not only do the HIV test (free) but also will check your blood for all the other STD's....and they'll throw in a bunch of free condoms and you just may make some new friends while waiting!

It is painless; confidential; and helps to make sure you don't spread something!

 

[tbonez]

I dont know how you can extrapolate that from what I've posted.

What you have posted are a bunch of, as near as I can tell, unsubstantiated opinions based on nothing I have had any luck collaborating...And I've tried.

What you posted...more than once was: " The relative risk of getting HIV from a blow job is higher than the risk of getting killed in a car accident."

False, no matter what additional conditions and limitations you want to put on your original statement after the fact. You said what you said. Black and white. There it is, despite all you contortions.

Basically your arguement relies on the number of people who've died from something in order to decide if it is risky.

Utterly false. It relies on hard and fast statistical data from one of, if not the, most respected peer reviewed journals that looks at statistical facts, not opinions and urban myths.

As for you assertion that: 'people died from something in order to decide if it is risky.' Well that is the most utterly disrespectful thing you could say about people who died for no such reason. I have come to expect nothing less from you.

Clearly you didn't even bother to read your own sources. ("statistically insignificant") before lambasting me. Obviously I'm not expecting you to look at the data I have provided.

So you'd rather ride a motorbike drunk with no helmet than go in a car because more people die in cars.

You'd rather go and play hopscotch in bagdad than drive car, because more people died in cars than....

Now I'm sure of it. So, are you just trying to bait me? First you broadside me with an utterly unsubstantiated and false accusation, the you say, "Oh, I think I have confused you with someone else". You THINK! No, you did, period full stop. Now you are drawing intentionally ridiculous and absurd conclusion about what I would and wouldn't do and claiming it is something I have implied.

I may be a bit slow on the up-take but I can see what's going on quite clearly at this point.

 

[tbonez]

BTW,

Nice move just ignoring the "contributing factors to infection".

Post all the straw-man arguments and non sequiturs you want. I'm confident if you get off the high horse you think you are on and take a good hard look you'll see that it's at least half domesticated donkey.

 

[tbonez]

So what you are saying is that 4/10,000 is less risky than 1/2,000,000.

Apples and grapes.

NO correlation and I NEVER said any such thing.

You are comparing one complete blowjob ending in a shot of cum on blood soaked gums to "one kilometre"...Not one round trip, not one driver.... Totally absurd IMO.

Besides that's irrelevant . You totally ignored the OTHER risk factors that ALLOWED infection to take place as was documented in the majority of published cases. ABBESSES, COMPROMISED IMMUNE SYSTEMS, BLEEDING GUMS, OPEN SORES IN THE MOUTH.

It is the equivalent to say that because lepers with weeping sores on their hands contracted HIV from mutual masturbation that mutual masturbation is more dangerous than driving a car.

risk = probability.

Yes and as I clearly demonstrated that probability suggests that you would have to suck off TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED cocks and have them ALL cum in your mouth before you would statistically contract HIV in a worst-case scenario TOTALLY ignoring any and all other obvious GREATER risk factors.

I'm not the one contorting anything.

So how would you describe REPEATEDLY misrepresenting what I said, conviently attributing other peoples comment to me and implying I'd rather play jump-rope in a mine field than drive a car or whatever dreck you claimed I was advocating.

BTW: I haven't failed to notice how you have repetedly neglected to address your slag at me regarding the "statistically irrelevant" quote from your own source.

Smooth...NOT

 

[tbonez]

This proves your own ignorance of risk and chance.

You might contract HIV on the first episode, you might not until the thirty thousandth.

So you don't find the first half of that more than a bit condecending? I do. (More baiting?)

If I dont have bleeding gums, an absess or open sores in my mouth or swallow cum, the chances are about nil as in .00 .

If you have ANY evidence that disputes this, my MAIN and KEY point You are obviusly not prepared to share it.

It still does not diminish the fact that your risk of contracting HIV from oral sex at your quoted 4/10,000 is over 800 times higher than the risk of dying in a car accident (per km travelled).

Per KM travelled!! It's not some minor irrelevant detail, it's the second biggest problem with your whole assertion IMO. Personally I have driven (as in behind the wheel) 250,000 Kms (so the odometer in my Jeep says) That doesn't take into account all the time I have spent as a passenger...likely another 250,000 Kms

The main issue is it totally and obviously ignores the other, far greater, risk factors the .04% had, that allowed the HIV into their bloodstream.

You are comparing one blowjob WITH a cum shot in the mouth to ONE kilometer of travel. Not even a fraction of an average one-way trip!

You've yet to explain how you wildly misrepresented my statements to claim that 52% of all HIV infections were related to oral sex?

If I failed to make my point clearly I will attempt to do so...Just as soon as you address a few of the ludicrous and profoundly personal attacks you have made towards me. Perhaps we could start with your slag about "'How many infections do there need to be until you stop calling it "negligible"?

Particularly when I pointed out (repeatedly) that observation was made, amongst dozens of other places in your own 'source' where it said, and I quote "statistically negligible".

Did you even read your own source? How did you miss that?

 

[Andreus]

i think you guys are talking about two different things

adidas is talking about responsibility in posting. I think he is using this as an example to promote resonsibility to the young guys and their future.

bone is talking about personal choices that he has made.

thats my shot at peacemaking...lol

 

[tbonez]

Look, I could be all wet but I doubt it:

You have consistently and repeatedly misrepresented what I have clearly stated.

You have consistently and repeatedly refused to take responsibility for your slag at me regarding "statistically irrelevant" even when I clearly and repeatedly illustrated that it came from your own "source". (Amongst about a dozen other places I have seen it)

You have refused to admit that your accusation towards me in a PM was clearly and plainly false. The closest you have come is to hint at the possibility you may have been mistaken. There is no doubt, your were wrong. You carelessly confused me with another JUBer and took a cheap-shot at my expense. You haven't had the common courtesy to just own up and admit it. Some veiled reference to "the possibility" doesn't cut it IMO.

You have repeatedly made reference to the fact that "I would advocate playing hopscotch in Bagdad rather than drive a car." or some such dreck. Total and utter unsubstantiated rubbish.

I have as recently as half-an-hour ago read the codes of conduct for posters and moderators and I'm have difficulty seeing how one of us is adhering to them. Just my personal opinion,you're the "expert". I'm having great difficulty reconciling the "higher standards" part in particular.

I don't mind one bit that you don't agree with me, I do deeply resent your tactics.

My two cents.

 

[tbonez]

What part of that is not an apology. How is that only a hint.

You have repeatedly slagged me here in public over a PM I sent you this morning. At the very next time I logged back on I got your PM and immediately sent this.

What do you want from me? BLOOD?

No, blood violates the "pound of flesh" rule, I'm not looking for you blood. Particularly as that would be "high risk behaviour" in anyone's books.

For the record I did run my posts by an administrator. I specifically asked if I was overreacting or crossing any "line". I was assured I wasn't. I'm inclined to take their unbiased word for it.

As for who slagged whom first, it seems a moot point.

If I'm oversensitive to what I perceive as personal attacks coming from a mod, then I apologise for that. I don't do "jaded' very well.

You have suggested that I "wound myself up". I'm thinking I had a hell of a lot of help and it seemed quite deliberate at times. It also came exclusively from one person.

Peace.

 

[Yves]

I never expected to see a discussion of relative risk of oral sex of more than 2 pages at JUB. Good to see different points of view.

Relative risk is a tool used to estimate risk of events in the population. In order to do that an event needs to be defined and a standard definition needs to be agreed upon. Definitions evolve across time. Experts groups usually work for years defining for example what HIV is and official definitions of HIV have changed across time.

The nature of the event is not neutral. In some cases a one time exposure to a specific threat or condition results in disease or death; in other cases repetitive or cumulative exposure is the problem. Air pilots that have travelled for more than 20 years have a different cumulative risk compared to someone who has travelled twice in 20 years. Insurance companies are very good at looking at cumulative risk data.... A couple of factors influence the discussion of risk when comparing events of different nature:

Numerators and denominators are not neutral
In order to define relative risk, clear numerators and denominators are needed. Motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) data is usually presented by kms and not per journey (denominators). Sometimes this decision is the result of convention or data availability (what is collected and how). In other cases there might be some agendas influencing the way data is collected and presented. For example, the actual risk of a MVA will be diffferent if expressed by kms or per journey. Advocates for injury prevention and the motorvehicle industry may prefer different denominators in order to make a more convincing case depending on their agendas.

Comparison of events of different nature
We need to compare events but at the same time we need to be aware of the potential limitations of comparing events of different nature.
All parties here agree on the idea that a road accident is not the same as being HIV+. Nevertheless, it seems justifiable to compare risks of exposure to different diseases or conditions in order to put things in perspective. Public health authorities do this all the time. Epidemiologists/statisticians compare risk of cancer by individual characteristics (smoker/non-smoker, male/female, etc) or by type of cancer (Is the risk of prostate cancer higher than colon cancer in men 40-55 yo?). These comparisons help to allocate resources for prevention. Cancer can also be compared to other disease as cardiovascular diseases or injuries (Is cancer more of a problem compared to road injuries?) as a way to guide policy and funding for prevention/treatment strategies.
Comparison of relative risk of cancer vs injuries is not uncommon the same as comparing the relative risk of oral sex vs injuries. It makes sense to compare the risk of oral sex to anal sex or to compare oral sex to a different event (MVA, Hep B, etc.) as long as we are aware of the methodological limitations in the comparison.

Data collection/availability
Reliable data collection systems are essential to estimate probabilities. Motor vehicle accidents are usually reported. Data is collected and reported using standard definitions. The same happens when someone is HIV+. The difference in this case is that oral sex is just one of the potential pathways.
Risk estimates for oral sex have been published. The data is usually retrospective and based on subjective accounts. It´s hard to find men who only practice oral sex and nothing else to estimate the risk of being HIV+. Some studies with relatively low sample size have been published as mentioned above. We know that unprotected oral sex is less risky than unprotected anal sex in terms of HIV, but the risk of HIV is not zero. Many of us don´t experience that risk in our personal life, but someone will in the population at large.

Framing of the problem
Relative risk data is used to define problems. In some cases societies have a proactive approach to decrease risk, in others the problem is not very high on the political agenda.
Belt use legislation is a typical example in the US. Not many people advocate for "optional" belt use or not use at all. For some other health problems the society has a vague response or no clear response at all. Gun control is a sensitive issue in the US and the regulations available are more conservative (the gun industry lobby is pretty good at using numerators and denominators more convenient to their agenda, not too different from what the tobacco industry used to do before the official recognition that tobacco causes cancer)
Statisticians and epidemiologists are a minority. The public and the general media seem to be more aware of some diseases than others and that´s not necessarily based on evidence. Relative risk can be a good tool to estimate the probability of exposure in the population as long as we are aware of assumptions, methodological limitations and agendas. Another challenge is to communicate risk effectively to the public and avoid misrepresentations.

 

[Rafik]

.....
But I'm assuming that most people here feel that the risk with b/j's is so low that it is worth the risk. Is that correct?

That's correct. (for me)

 

[texyboi]

I just don't want my cock in someones mouth in a wreck. Sounds like a good way to loose it

 

[MJ193]

tbonez wins this argument by a longshot. Adidas, it's fine that you're informing readers of a certain, albeit negligent, risk of something. But you have a gross misunderstanding of statistical analysis and extrapolation. The two statistics you presented are absolutely incomparable, and the conclusion you draw from them is not only patently and objectively false and unfounded, but disregards confounding factors.

You may as well have presented the risk of orogenital STI transmission as a risk per how many centimeters per dick sucked. It's absurd. Show me ONE professional statistician who agrees with your assertion and I'll show you a monkey with two assholes for eyes.

 

[MJ193]

Which only goes to show how much the argument derailed the intention of my original post, and how little you can understand that.

And apparently you understand little about the correlation between intention and context. Intention backed up by incomparable statistics is a sensationalist intention.

Your request for the production of a "professional statistician" to comment on this is like asking for a music critic to critique a movie simply on the basis that "it has some music in it.

You draw the strangest analogies. This particular one is, again, incomparable. Statistics is based on hard data that can be scientifically and objectively analyzed, regardless of one's profession. Actually, it's one's profession that leaves room spinning statistics.

...the statistics are simply a tool to illustrate the need to practise risk reduction even when the chance of the event is small.

But they don't illustrate this. They are incomparable. Your "original intention" has been tainted by your bizarre extrapolation from these statistics. And most importantly, your introduction of those statistics has weakened your original intention.

Yves post was great, but I don't understand you using to support your argument. I'll let you highlight and take out of context what YOU want from his post, but I'll highlight the most important part, which is especially important in this case:

It makes sense to compare the risk of oral sex to anal sex or to compare oral sex to a different event (MVA, Hep B, etc.) as long as we are aware of the methodological limitations in the comparison.

Oh, and Yves underlined part of that sentence for added emphasis.

...acting positively is better than sticking your head in the sand and pretending that if you cant see it it cant hurt you.

If I thought about every single thing that could harm me (particularly the ones that pose a statistically insignificant chance of harming me), I would be living a sad, lonely, fearful, sheltered life. Maybe you do.

 

[ladygrey]

I've read all the opinions on this thread

and I must say:

while you might have a point, adidas4boyspunk, cause sexual health and safety is very important:

you completly alienated the indivduals you where trying to support or "inform"

Target your message to your audence. Because if you don't,
you come off sounding like a fanatic with no backing in what they are saying, other than searching for conflict.


Regardless of whose right or wrong, respect goes a long way to presenting your important but debatable message.

 

[jockboy01]

Okay, I started off reading every post, but then I got bored with the back and forth. Ultimately, it comes down to this...

1) There's a risk of contracting HIV by oral sex. It exists period. If you want to neglect that risk, it's your decision. The risk is small yes, but the consequences if you are the unlucky one are HORRIBLE. So each man must make that decision for himself... and with his partner. Not to confuse analogies here, but people play the lottery. And I think you have a better chance of contracting HIV by oral sex than striking a jackpot on the lottery (no solid evidence for that, but I'd place money that's an accurate statement considering the chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 5-64 million depending on which game you play). So if you think that you can win the lottery, doesn't it make sense that you can get HIV from oral sex too? I think so (and ironically I don't play the lottery).

2) Numbers can totally be manipulated. People make a living out of manipulating numbers and statistics. So I think they are only good for a generalization here and there. Personal opinion.

3) Car insurance... lol. I like how we got off topic here about this one. Car insurance doesn't insure you against death in an accident. I actually don't like the whole idea of car insurance personally (I do have it). I mean, insurance companies make millions of dollars by taking everybodies money and only paying when forced. It would be easier if we all just put our fees in and when there was an accident, money came out of that fund to pay for both parties. The extra money (which right now is insurance company profits) could be used to throw amazing parties. Maybe I'm just jaded on insurance, but I think it is a waste of money in an attempt to minimize financial risk. Yet, I have it when required.