How safe is giving oral without a condom?

[olekunde]

How about ther forms of sexual contact?

Like rubbing your cocks together? Or if she has just come, maybe there is still some seaman on her hand if she then touches your cock? It's difficult to know quite how safe the various ways of be intimate are. Obviously, a ladyboy would be considered a high risk partner by most people, especially as most of the ones we are likely to sleep with are gonna be working girls.

i think the best way to get info about how can catch hiv is read the Q&A from www.thebody.com

but rubbing penises and semen or pre-cum from hands would only carry a theoretical risk of transmission.
you need an open sore or a bleeding cut to get infected.

[Guest]

I don't really mean HIV O, but smaller but still troublesome infections

[Guest]

Hello

...erm.. I have a Ph.D in biochemistry, and work as a cell/molecular biologist, so I know a bit about this stuff. However you do not need much more than common sense to realise the weight of the evidence makes it more probable than anything else that  HIV is the causative agent of AIDS.

Most telling evidence: treatments based on the assumption that this is the case (anti-retroviral cocktails) work. NPR in the US just described  the results of a study in Haiti where survival rate of some groups went from 30 to 90% when given these drugs. Viral load WAS measured and went down drastically as  disease symptom severity dropped.

We could all think of reasons to argue that this is coincidence, and this would make some of us feel psychologically stronger at being outside the common herd and able to think for ourselves.

But I think a life lived on the assumption that the theory is true is a safer and more sensible option and I urge you to do the same.

cheers

[thaibound]

Hello

...erm.. I have a Ph.D in biochemistry, and work as a cell/molecular biologist, so I know a bit about this stuff. However you do not need much more than common sense to realise the weight of the evidence makes it more probable than anything else that  HIV is the causative agent of AIDS.

Most telling evidence: treatments based on the assumption that this is the case (anti-retroviral cocktails) work. NPR in the US just described  the results of a study in Haiti where survival rate of some groups went from 30 to 90% when given these drugs. Viral load WAS measured and went down drastically as  disease symptom severity dropped.

We could all think of reasons to argue that this is coincidence, and this would make some of us feel psychologically stronger at being outside the common herd and able to think for ourselves.

But I think a life lived on the assumption that the theory is true is a safer and more sensible option and I urge you to do the same.

cheers

excellent advice!
so....doc....
...what about the original poster's question?
"How safe is giving oral without a condom?"

[Guest]

The solution is simple. Wear the LB a condom and give her a blowjob. If you think this is still risky, use 3 condoms instead.

[Guest]

giving or recieving a Blow Job with a condom is like having a Golden Shower with a Raincoat on.........

up to you .......

But the REAL question is SPIT or SWALLOW ????

[Guest]

The solution is simple. Wear the LB a condom and give her a blowjob. If you think this is still risky, use 3 condoms instead.

Unfortunately more is not better when it comes to condoms as it has been proven that wearing more than one actually increases any risk because of the friction between them which is makes it more likely for tears.

[olekunde]

i also read what ozzie says, but from real life experience two condoms never broke with me(but only done this 3/4 times, and all these times they where spanish or brazilian shemales, maybe it is their practice to use two condoms??). but one have borken lots of times. and it has always been my "falang condoms" that broke. when i buy condoms now, i go for the brand, "duo". not as easily as available as "durex", but some family markes and 7/11 have them. the "duo" brand is also in a "farang size", but i also have noticed that the bigger the condom is, the bigger the chance is it to be damaged if it doesnt fits your cock well. also be careful when put the condom on. roll and dont use nails and squeeze the air out of the tip of the condom. and always use waterbase lubricant. they can also be bought from the convneint stores in los.

[olekunde]

a link i came across on another board

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=pr-rr-05

[thaibound]

a link i came across on another board

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=pr-rr-05

thanks O, very interesting, if somewhat frustrating read!
thruout the long disagreement over just HOW low risk (very low? exceedingly low? no statistical risk at all?) oral sex is, at one point one of the learned discussers says with regard to how to deal with those who experienced oral sex but then feared hiv exposure:

"Would we offer them post-exposure prevention and post exposure prophylaxis with antiviral medications?"

Say WHAT? Just how long "post-exposure" would some "prevention" be possible, and what the hell are these 'antivirals" they're talking about? This seems to bring some fleeting validity to my own semi-superstitious practice of rinsing with hydrogen peroxide. But how much validity? And what else should i gargle with? And how soon? Or are we talking pills? Shots? What are we talking about here? And how the hell would this "morning after" prophylaxis work?

Inquiring minds want to know...MORE!!!

Can I put on the condom AFTER i cum?

[Guest]

Well, thanks for insulting the many of us who were probably reading this thread with interest. Sounds like you cannot take some of your own medicine - some guys here were questioning your hypothesis, just like you were advocating should be done with HIV-AIDS. Seems pretty reasonable to me

Another question - of all the news organisations in the world, and you CANNOT say they are ALL sheep, why have none of them exposed this sham?

If the description doesn't fit you, then I wasn't responding to you. Don't take personal offence at a directed response if you are not the one directed towards.

These other facts that others have brought up about viral load etc. are just assumptions based on what people generally think they know about the hypothesys.

To cover some recently brought up issues.

1. High viral load. This is just nonsense. The fact is, people dying of AIDS *do not* have a HIV viral load. What they may or may not have is a HIV anti-body load floating around in their bodies.
So far, no one has been able to isolate the HIV virus from a culture taken from an AIDS victim. This is a very standard procedure. If you had a cold or flu for instance, Dr.'s could isolate the virus from your blood stream easily.
If the HIV=AIDS hypothesis were right, isolating the virus would be a walk in the park.

AIDS victims are often *not* tested, but are what's called "presumptive cases". That means the Dr. just writes it down without a anti-body test. Some percentage, and don't assume it's a small one, of the positive anti-body tests are false. False positives are not un-common because the test is picking up cross reactive anti-bodies from other types of infections.

AIDS patients who test positive for HIV anti-bodies repeatedly with more involved tests to come up with a sure positive result, *do not* have the HIV virus in their blood. They have anti-bodies which your body may keep for a ong time, maybe even forever. In all likelihood, they did have the HIV virus once but it was successfully killed by their bodies immune system and flushed many years ago.

No one can say for sure, because *no one is testing this*. No one will test it as long as it is assumed that the equation is all figured out.

2. This is somehow an American thing. Where did that come from?  People will grasp for the oddest reasons to call the other guy a phony. "He's from the other village" outsider syndrome is a pretty ancient one. Yes, I happen to be an American. That has nothing to do with anything. The group of Dr.s who are trying to introduce a reassertion of the AIDS hypothesis are numbered a little over 500, and they are from all countries. Many, including some of the most well known and vocal are from the US, but that's not surprising considering the dispropotionate medical community, economics, and amount of research in the US vs. other countries. This is not a value statement or any kind of drubbing, that is simply a demograhic fact.

3. Mullis and Deusberg are two of the most vocal oppositionists, for lack of a better term. Most people can only name one or two people from any political party or movement. Name the top 250 people in the Greenpeace organization? I can't even name one. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. There is a organized group of over 500 Dr.s who simply don't believe in the current theory and want to see people explore other avenues because their vue of the research tells them that the current hypothesis isn't right, and is in fact wasting time and money.  There are likely hundreds more Dr.s who harbor their own doubts, or have done their own dissenting research but may not be members of this organization, or may just not want to get into a public debate about it, or buck the trend. Some people have seen their funding cut, and their research papers trashbinned over this.

4. Again... HIV sounds scary because that is the name they gave it. If could have been called "Ralph" or "Pamela". It actually had several names, some less threatening, because it was being looked at by different Dr.s at different labs in different places. The HIV name was eventually settled on in part over a lawsuit claiming bragging rights, and also because the Dr.s involved with it were convinced at that time that it was the *cause* of AIDS.

5. HIV may be extremely common. Retro-viral organizms are not uncommon. You have many retro-viral things floating around in your body right now. Your own DNA sequences have retro-viral elements in places. This doesn't mean it's all going to kill you. There are many people who have had HIV *at some point* because they do show positive after repeated and multiple tests for the *anti-bodies*. Meaning their body fought it at some point and kicked it. Many people have had HIV at some point and have not as yet contracted AIDS. We're talking about periods of decades. The HIV=AIDS proponents have claimed that there is a "latency period", but they have conveniently stretched that latency period the longer AIDS has been known, and the longer people have gone with HIV anti-bodies without contracting AIDS.
There could be thousands and thousands of people with HIV anti-bodies walking around calmly living their lives without ever knowing it or suffering any ill effects. The point once again is that we won't know until people start studying that issue. You only find what you are looking for.


6. The definition itself, of AIDS, is flawed. The definition includes a combination of some 30+ diseases combined with a supposed positive HIV anti-body test. Its like a chinese menu, "pick one from column A and two from column B". Even Dr.s who don't want to get involved in the debate agree that it's a stupid definition of an ailment. It's like saying the Flu is one disease, and the Flu if youhave Red hair is a different disease.

7. People have died of immuno system collapse for no explainable or specific reason throughout history. People have died from all kinds of strange ailments and failures of the body that were never explained, many of which can be attributed to just plain differences in everyones general makeup. A friend of mine was engaged to a girl whose body became allergic to her own blood. She basically suffered the syptoms of an organ donor whose body rejected ALL her organs. She was treated by a Dr. who was considered THE expert on the matter because he had treated 2 of the patients who had it. Only 5 people are know to have been diagnosed witht he disease, she was number 6.
 The point is that there are infintely variable people, and plenty of medical mystery and questions never answered. Some of the people who will die from imune collapse will happen for various different reasons. The pneumonia that one person may survive might just devestate another persons immune system for no reason. Until there is a specific cause known for AIDS, we won't know how many of the statistics are not related to each other. Its already known that many subgroups of AIDS cases have little in common. Some of them may not be "AIDS cases" at all. Until there is a better definitive definition of what AIDS is, the statistics are very difficult to make much meaning of.

 Let me change modes here for a second. I'm not going out of my way to insult anyone or have any other kind of weird motive. I am not a Dr. I am simply sharing information that I've researched fairly extensively for a layman. People do share news, views, and opinions you know. Its not a crime and I'm not the first.

I have lashed back a little, and tried to defend my position, and myself. I think that's pretty reasonable. If I've hit anyone who doesn't think they deserved it, believe me, it was not intended and I am sorry that it happened. I'm not out to get anyone. Why would I be for crying out loud?

I am sharing information I believe to be accurate and rarely known. Not an uncommon condition over history. I never posited any theories that I was better than anyone else, smarter than anyone else, or better looking. I think some peopel do just love to get on the receiving end of an argument and read these things into whatever they hear when they feel their dander up.  I'm not looking for any personal debates.

If other people feel this information is correct, that's fine. I've got no problem with debating, or rather, explaining what I know or have read, or surmised. That's about as far as I can go, as once again I don't have a lab in the basement. If anyone wishes to share or disagree based on their own knowledge and admit their lack theoreof in the same way, that's quite fine also. I've got no beef with people sharing other information as well.  

What I don't need is that happening in an attack fashion. What's the point? I swear any time there is an anonymous forum, people get in such a macho state and have to flame or turn everything into a pissing match. None of you would do this same thing sitting in a pub or a drawing room. You'd rightly assuem that someone would punch you in the nose if you responded to someone's talking by suddenly standing an a chair and acting like a braying ass.  Take a chill pill and talk or share if you like but leave the anonymity-drunk attitude behind.

I can't see how anyone could have read all of what I've said and come away with the impressions that some have, or the absurdly out-of-proportion responses that some have had. It seems that several of the responses have completely ignored or forgotten parts of what I've said, prompting me to have to repeat the same information over and over again. Others just seem to have come out of left field.

I do appreciate those who have been civil, those that have shared good information or opinions, and those who have been open to listening and thinking. I hope you specifically will understand my intentions and attitudes, and not take offence or assume anything negative is directed at you. In general, I find that those open minded people have the good sense to sort it all out and take things in the right light.

I consider myself to be a above average intelligence person (and I've tested that way repeatedly). It's at least a statistical fact that I'm nore than one standard deviation higher in IQ than the average of the population. That doesn't make me a super-person or better than anyone. I do also have aptitudes in reasoning, science, logic, and verbal and written communication. I think I'm a pretty good researcher and a fairly resonable chap in general. While none of this makes me an uber-man, I do think it makes me feel pretty reasonably sure of myself, and I'm not some complete dipshit who just goes popping of about ludicrous theories of aliens and seven headed dragons.

In other words, I'm a smart guy who likes to enjoy smart talk about interesting subjects with other people. I may make mistakes and screw up, but please don't get in a twit and make stabs at me. If I do something wrong or offend someone, I like to think I'm reasonable about recognizing it, and apologetic to those who didn't deserve it.

Pure rubbish.

Misinformation, ignorance and falsehoods.

[Guest]

1. Do not brush your teeth before or after oral copulation, as this can make your gums tender and possibly bleed.

[PigDogg]

I think mouthwash rather than brushing teeth is safer before sex. No cuming in mouth is safer too and u then get to see the money shot. Sexual activity with a risk group such as Thai ladyboys or bargirls is risky business. But, I want to strike the right balance and like for many of us it's bareback blowjobs but no cuming in mouth.

[Soi8dave]

I have always regarded bare back blow jobs as being safe including cuming in my mouth. I do look for any cuts or sores on their co cks and wash out my mouth with neat listerine afterwards.

[Guest]

[QUOTE= (grunyen @ Nov. 24 2005,00:00)]

Y

3. Many people with AIDS do not have HIV.

It's important not to confuse imperfect measurement tools with the results of their tests. For nearly 15 years, the HIV test that was designed by Robert Gallo was yielding false negatives of around 15% and false positives of around 5-10%. Thus there were a lot of people that were HIV+ who tested negative (and also some HIV- that tested +, sometimes ending in their suicide). Gallo has been discredited (he though AIDS was a type of cancer, and fabricated evidence to support this ... this is why his test didn't work well), and newer, better tests are available. But there are still false negatives and positives, and people may draw the wrong conclusions from these mistakes.