How safe is giving oral without a condom?

[Guest]

Look here fellas - for fucks sake it is really simple.

Why oh why take the risk of catching HIV or anything else for that matter ?  The jury is out on catching HIV through oral though whatever the argument a fruit flavoured condom over her willy is a SMALL price to pay when potentially your life maybe on the line !!!!

I really can't see the problem at all.  Me I don't want to die of HIV/AIDS period and I want to fuck ladyboys till i'm in my 70's hopefully !!  So if that means taking a simple and quick precaution to ensure my pleasure into old age so be it !!!

Frankly in this day and age with all the info out there any dickhead who goes bareback or does not practice safe sex deserves to fucking die !!  I know that sounds harsh but not practising safe sex is both irresponsible and a death sentence for an innocent person.  We all fuck in the same pool more or less so the more responsible you are the safer we all are.  Just consider this - all the superstars out there such as Areeya, Lyla, Natalie, and Chompoo - how many cocks do they get up there ass every night ?  You would be shocked trust me and how many of us have partaken of said asses in a moment of weakness or simple dream conquest ? It just takes 1 dickhead to infect those gals and yes it then could quite easily be you next !! It is not so improbable as you think.

I'm absolutely sure that the guys up here that go to thailand regular probably do end up fucking the same girls.  Jeez I would love to know how many members up here have fucked say Chompoo or Arreya for example ?

I have fucked both for starters any others out there.......?

Inde

     

Quite correct and to the point.

There is no data (repeat, NO DATA) that mouth rinsing, delayed tooth brushing or any other myth will protect an exposed subject from seroconverting.

NO DATA to support such measures. Only barriers (i.e., condoms) have been demonstrated to be protective, and even barriers are not 100% effective. Roll the dice.

You fools who bareback with prostitutes are playing Russian roulette.

[brocklanders]

Quick solution to the problem?  Stop sucking cock.   Just kidding guys....cant see how any would find that enjoyable but to each his own.

As for receiving oral bare back, I will never revert back to condoms for this act.   For sexual intercourse with a woman or anal with a ladyboys, condoms are a must.   For BJ's, condoms are about as pleasant as fucking a sock.  There is absolutely zero sensation...why bother.   I will take those risks any day.     I have received BBBJ's from over 1,500 girls and maybe 20 LB's from 9 countries and never caught a thing...zero.    For me, the pleasure of a BBBJ far outweighs the risks associated with it...but thats just me.    I mean truly, have any of you enjoyed a covered BJ...I'd rather them give me a hand job.

[Guest]

...I'd rather them give me a hand job....

Hi.
I may not agree 100% with brocklanders but he ha dgiven a ery nice alternative - a good handjo... and yes it is bareback - let it go as you please...

[Guest]

Now I'm really going to stir the pot.

There is no scientific evidence that the HIV virus causes AIDS.

None.

(Don't read into this any advocation that you should not practice safe sex, I'm not using this as an excuse. Simply a side topic).

[thaibound]

Frankly in this day and age with all the info out there any dickhead who goes bareback or does not practice safe sex deserves to fucking die !!  

I'm sure you find great comfort in knowing that millions of very righteous and religious people absolutely agree with you. Of course, they think fucking a ladyboy even WITH a condom is good enough to warrant your death. And ANY kind of blowjob warrants condemnation. In some states it's a crime worthy of incarceration.
Not to mention an after-life in purgatory.
This leaves just a thin membrane of latex between your self-righteous death sentence and theirs.
Then again there are millions more who believe it is the use of latex itself which condemns you to hell -- though not so much when used to penetrate a ladyboy's non-procreative orifice. That's a whole different reason to be sent to hell, that is.

Personally, I'd rather not condemn anyone to death for a mutually agreed upon act, no matter how ill-judged or misbegotten -- though I hate when my medical insurance costs go up repairing the splintered heads of bikers who crash into me and aren't even wearing helmets (or the systems of hobbyists who never wear protection). But to wish someone dead because they still enjoy a good bbbj? To encourage such violent retribution upon your fellow hobbyists whose hygienic strictures are a bit more forgiving than your own - to callously condemn everyone who rides without a helmet now and again because you want your own sexual deviancies to be safer. Rest assured, there are many who wish you just as ill for what you do as you wish those who do more than you. You've got issues, dude. Maybe we should all just put down the stones.

What doth God require of thee o man, but what is good? To do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.
Play smart. Play safe. Play fair.
Peace.

[Guest]

Thanks for the replies. As I thought, the jury is still out. I know receivings BJ's the chances are pretty slim, but giving them is slightly different. Looks like I'm gonna have to stick with the rubber johnnies for a while

[Guest]

Now I'm really going to stir the pot.

There is no scientific evidence that the HIV virus causes AIDS.

None.

(Don't read into this any advocation that you should not practice safe sex, I'm not using this as an excuse. Simply a side topic).

You are an imbecile.

Stop listening to South African politicians.

All 4 of Koch's Postulates have been satisfied with respect to HIV. The evidence is in fact overwhelming. HIV causes AIDS.

[Stewart]

There is no scientific evidence that the HIV virus causes AIDS.

None.

So, tell us what you think you know

[olekunde]

alot of people promoting hiv doesnt cause aids. but reverse the argument. have anyone died of aids without being hiv+?
also the well-known shemale pornstar alanah starr supported the fact that there is no evidence that shows hiv causes aids, and her opionion on the matter of giving oral was that it was close to zero.

if anyone care, my opinion, is that unless you get sperm in your mouth the chance of catching hiv is extremely low. even if you get sperm in your mouth, you must have a fresh bleeding cut or an open sore with direct opening to your blood, AND the virus has to get into this wound and into the bloodstream. it is not an intelligent virus that is searching the mouth for open sores, and it is getting killed almost at instant with contact with the proteins and bacterias that are found in the mouth to a normal healthy person.
but on the other hand, i wouldnt give oral to someone i knew was hiv+ ..

[Guest]

You are an imbecile.

Stop listening to South African politicians.

All 4 of Koch's Postulates have been satisfied with respect to HIV. The evidence is in fact overwhelming. HIV causes AIDS.

That's pretty interesting.

The first thing you could think to say is to tell some stranger you've never met and know little to nothing about that "You're an imbecile"?

I have no idea if you are an imbecile or not, so I'll just put that up-front.

I also have no idea what you're talking about in regard to South African politicians. To my knowledge, I've never heard anything at all from any South African politician.

All 4 of Koch's postulates have NOT been satisfied (simply asserting something in a scnientific report does not make it true). You can not make something true by continuing to reassert louder and more vehemently incorrect information.

In any case, both sides of this argument have conceded that Koch's postulates were developed long before Virii were known of, and serve only as helpful guidelines anyway.

Throughout the history of science, corellations have been mistaken for cause and effect. Unfortunately, it is often the Aristotlean logic that prevails because it is simple, intuitive, memorable, and easy to explain to the masses.

Thus old-wives-tales, bad science, and misunderstanding get passed from generation to generation.

There's no point in me detailing the medical issues here, I am not a doctor, and all that information is readily available. I will note some plain sense laymens concepts related not the medical cause of the disease, but the human factors that surround it.

1. HIV has not been definitively proven to be a precursor and direct cause of AIDS. Period.

2. There are many people living with HIV who don't even know they have it because no one is testing them. Why should they, they have no symptoms. Imagine a new disease being found and Dr.s finding that "Every patient we've tested also has feet! Feet must cause this new disease"

3. Many people with AIDS do not have HIV.

4. AIDS is by definition a syndrome, not a "disease" per se. Always be suspicious of anything that is a syndrome. If you can't point to a specific scientif testible cause, you're likely to get boondogled if there is money to be made. (BTW, Autism is not a disease)

5. The definition of AIDs keeps changing. We've all heard that AIDS has exploded in Africa. That's because the definition of AIDS has specifically been changed to include malaria. Well no shit, suddenly you add everyone from the malaria rolls to the AIDS rolls. This definition was changed after a private marketing study (which was leaked) showing that charitable donations would increase dramatically if a third world country were "ravaged" by AIDs. Africa was number 1 in the study list.

6. AIDS is a political disease. Those who first postulated the HIV - AIDS causaility have a lot riding on their hypothesis.

7. AIDS is a huge political money machine. Other diseases that DO have direct causes, and affect hundreds of times more people, get a tiny fraction of the money spent per person on AIDS. AIDS makes headlines because of a vocal advocacy community made up of disparate groups that all have something to gain by promoting "awareness".

Now having said all that, let me remind everyone. I'm a human being. I've got a family and friends just like you and your mates at the pub. I'm not a robot or a souless bastard. Think before you flame or reply with some first shot across the bow like "You're an imbecile".

I have no agenda, other than to promote the truth. I am not anti-gay, anti-science, anti-medicine, anti-african, or anti-anything. I am a firm believer in science. I believe in evolution, I don't think "god hates fags". I have no stake politically or monetarily. I hate to see Africans dying, I'm sorry American mushy headed liberals took DDT away from you or the Malaria problem could be solved.

You can find supposed "conclusive proof" on both sides of this argument all over the web. There are various stages of each side besting each other. I've read both and considered the medical and political factors, as well as what I know about those involved and what stake they have to gain.

I am convinced that many years from now, the HIV - AIDS hypothesis will fall on the shelf right next to "the world is flat".

[olekunde]

3. Many people with AIDS do not have HIV.

err .. where are they. i have never heard of anyone or read about anyone with aids that is not hiv+. unless you talk about very old people or people that have been serious ill, and they might get some of the diseases that you would find in aids pasients.

ok, so aids might not be the disease, hiv are, and before, a decade ago, hiv pasients that had a numerous of diseases that was caused by immunne deficiency got the label aids pasients (karposis sarma or something like that).

in my country, there are no "serious" doctors that support what you write. do you believe smoking can cause lung cancer?
and CAN hiv cause aids? do you believe that or not?

[Guest]

I have also read the same thing as grunyen. That there are some people with full blown AIDs who test as HIV negative. Maybe they are a minority amongst those with AIDs but they do exist. Same thing, but much more common, about people being HIV+ for years and never developing AIDs. It is not always an absolute correlation in that if you have one, you will for sure have the other.

[olekunde]

as said already. the diseases hiv cause has existed before hiv was known to the public.
so those with reduced immune defence will have the same symptoms as aids pasient, but a very few doesnt cure themselves as the body dont have to fight a virus that kill the possibilty to build up a new defency.
it is proven over and over again how hiv destroys cells in the body that maintain a stable immune defence. to debate this is ridicolous, especially for those who arent scientists in this field. those who have the loudest mouth in this matter are those with little or none expertise whatsoever. i wonder why. but if they wanna have unprotected sex it is really all up to them.

[Guest]

it is proven over and over again how hiv destroys cells in the body that maintain a stable immune defence. to debate this is ridicolous, especially for those who arent scientists in this field.


but if they wanna have unprotected sex it is really all up to them.

Actually it's never been proven that HIV destroys immune cells. Surprised? You should be.

To say that HIV kills some cells isn't saying much. When you drink Milk it kills cells. Oxygen and alcohol kill cells in your body. That's not really an issue. Many things kill T cells.

The question is, does it kill a massive enough T cell load to reduce immune responses, allowing the body to sucumb to other diseases. The clear answer is No.

Most HIV tests rely on finding HIV anti-bodies. Here is what actually happens in the HIV life cycle. HIV does attach to some T cells. About less than 1%. That's a very miniscule amount.

The body actually produces anti-bodies to fight the HIV retrovirus. The body undergoes mild flue like symptoms for a couple of days. Then the immune system kills off the HIV.
That's it. That's the whole deal.

Now what you THINK you know, what you've been told many times is that somehow 10 years later, after there is no detectable HIv left in the body, somehow the immune system collapses in conjunctin with some other disease.

The whole problem with the HIV=AIDS hypothesis is that the definition of AIDS is one of about 30 diseases in conjunction with the presence of HIV anti-bodies. The definition is the problem.

Let me repeat this. If you have a disease on a list of about 30 (a list which has changed and expanded several times), and you also show a positive result on a test for remnants of anti-bodies for HIV- you are diagnosed with AIDS.

If you have tuberculosis with HIV, they say you have AIDS. If you test negative for HIV anti-bodies, then you have plain old TB. That's ridiculous.

Some CDC officials were embarassed that the most recent co-factor list included cervical cancer. What the hell does cervical cancer have to do with AIDS? Nothing, its purely political. 90% of AIDS cases are male, and county health officials get $2,500 for every reported AIDS case.

There was going to be a SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT. So poof, invasive cervical cancer plus an HIV anti-boy positive test means you now have AIDS.

OK, so that means everyone who is diagnosed with AIDs has a positive HIV antibody test right? WRONG.
Many patients are listed as AIDs with a "presumptive diagnosis". In other words, they have Pnemonia or Kaposo's Sarcoma and the Dr. finds it more advantageous to list them as AIDs patients. There's no money in those patients simply having KS.

Kaposi's sarcoma is one of the biggest co-factor diseases associated with AIDs. Well surprise, it turns out KS is not related to HIV in many cases. A new and very likely theory is that KS is actually caused by amyl-nitrate "poppers".

Also, if you'll see my previous post I *never* suggested not practicing safe sex.

In the scientific world, publishing your articles is a huge career builder. Any discovery must be published, and becomes the basis for all future works that cite that initial reference.

There is no such reference for the HIV causes AIDs hypothesis. No one has ever created such a document. There's also several thousand dollars in prize money to be claimed for anyone who can isolate the HIV virus, which is a common thing for imunology and epidemiological work. No one has claimed this prize money.

The CDC admits thousands of cases of AIDs without HIV. But they came up with a new name for that to distract fro the issue. The truth is, there are probably exponentially many more cases of imuno-collapse without any presence of HIV. But the problem is no one is looking for them. Most of the research community is following the money trail, which means continuing the "established" theory.

The root of many arguments lies in terms and defnitions. Since the definition of AIDs itself is part of the problem, it is difficult to address the issue in an unbiased way. As well, the "human immunodeficiency virus" is simple a name. It is a poor description of what it actually does. HIV is attacked by the body creating anti-bodies and it is rid from the system after mild flu like symptoms. You can call something "evil killer vampire" enuogh times, but it doesn't make a mosquito into a killer vampire.

The point here is that $22 Billion or more has been an absolute waste of resources.

[olekunde]

you have to have me excused, but this seems like more of a political rather than a medical statement. ie, from where do you have the information that only 1 percentage of the hiv virus connects to the t cells. are these figures published lab results?

do all people react excatly the same to all diseases, not only hiv but just take flew. does all people with flew have the same symptoms or does the disease effect all the same way?

what is interesting should be that, for all those who have died and that was hiv+, also had a spectre of the socalled 30 or more diseases no-one seems to agree on should be on a list to classify one as a person with aids.
i guess(since im not a virolog or doc) that based on medical studies and tests, that the common factor for all people that was hiv+ and eventually developed aids, is that they had reduced immune defence and they all got a cocktail of the mentioned diseases, and again you come up with some very doubtful facts about how many people have aids without having hiv. but then again, you only say thousands, but how many millions are there with aids and that are hiv+. in comparison your numbers are very low, and not really significant, more of an exception of the rule.
no wonder why 22 bills of dollars have been used when it probably are used on discussions like this instead of consentrate of what should be important - producea a vaccine and medicine for hiv.

what i would like to know is, and i guess you can tell me since this topic seems to interest you. people with support your views do they have something in common like political views, sexual preferences, or so on.
i read somewhere (awhile ago, and this was actually also in safe or unsafe oralsex debate), that a hiv+ person supported these views and i thought to myself. is it because he doesnt want to believe he eventually will "die" of aids or that he want to promote unsafe sex (read: death to the people) (even if you say you never do promote unsafe sex, but i cannot really see what else youre preaching).
"die" since i am not sure how effective these new medicines are, but most people even with these are living in a constant hell of pilling eating, anxiety and predjudice.