Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/web/public_html/bb/showpost.php on line 215

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/web/public_html/bb/showpost.php on line 220
CRUISING for SEX - View Single Post - To swallow or not to swallow
View Single Post
  #67  
Old 13th October 1999, 01:57 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

It seems to me this string is full of paranoia and misinformation. Sometimes, reading it, I expected to see questions like: What is the mortality risk of taking cum in the mouth once a week compared to that of walking across a freeway once a week? What is the rate of HIV infection among weekly cocksuckers compared to the rate of cancer diagnoses?

The epidemiology of HIV infection tells us that if cocksucking were more than a small risk, the rate of infection would be FAR higher. The risk appears to be so small, in fact, that I wonder, statistically, how it stands up against the deviation you'd have to allow for people's lying, confusion, poor memories, etc., regarding their anal encounters. The vast, huge majority of men reporting infection also report unprotected anal sex. Men who do not have unprotected anal sex report no infections, with the tiny smattering of guys claiming it was raw cocksucking.

One risk factor nobody here has mentioned is the status of the person you are sucking off. In bizarre actuality, the concentration of HIV is so much higher in the newly sero-converted that, statistically, it is actually safer to have unsafe sex with a known positive than with someone whose status you don't know -- meaning someone who is possibly in the process of converting and has the highest levels of HIV possible. Yes, I know that sounds incredible, but it's true and from the CDC, which of course realizes it is too politically sensitive to report broadly. I'm not suggesting anyone have unprotected sex with poz guys. I'm just trying to demonstrate that HIV infection is a lot more complex than most people realize. (And this argues against someone's contention that having sex with the young is safer than with older guys.)

So, it isn't just the tissue that is being exposed but the quantity of HIV present in the sperm that influences risk.

I also know two people who claim they have been infected by oral transmission. Usually, I am quite suspicious of the claim, but even if it is true, it is rare enough to be called an anomaly.