Gonorhea Alert
 

Hey GUYZ,
I just wanted to share that I got gonorhea from a guy that sucked me off. After going to the doc and getting treated, he said that guyz that are into "oral" only can be the worst ones to carry the disease. The throat is the easiest place for the disease to reside. Just because they do "oral" only and feel that it is "safe" they don't get tested and pass it on.

I got it from a HOT GUY at the gym. It was a HOT scene that started in the shower area and ended up in another location in the gym. It was a slow night and we could get away with it. Well, about 3 days later I got the "drips" and went and got treated. I had to send an email to the guyz that I was in contact with since the gym incident and tell them to get tested and treated.

I AM NOT A SEX NAZI!

GET TESTED and GET TREATED if you are sexually active!

your thoughts.........

Thanks for the reminder

Thanks
 

Thanks for the heads up...Yeah..I think of oral as being pretty safe. Thanks for the reminder!

You Did Very Well
 

Nope, you are not a sex nazi or whatever.

You had a bit of unprotected fun and this time it did not quite work out the way it mostly does. We all know that shit happens to all of us.

Now, you did two good things in my books, that is. You got treated and you alerted other guys, so that they could go and have the bug checked and treated, too.

I already know a few guys (some str8, some gay) who came up with the same basic story. They did not think oral was dangerous, etc. Now, they have stepped into it and it feels like...

All of us want/ought to read your post. You want to make a qualified and educated decision for yourself. Do you want to take such risks or would you rather have a condom over your dick and minimize your risks?

Youd shot guys...

KD:D

Condom with oral sex?
 

What's the point? Might as well go sightseeing with a blindofld on. Swim in a three piece suit.

So you get the clap. You take one pill and it's gone. Life is to be experienced. Bad things sometimes happen. Not the end of the world.

I just went to the doctor because the head of my cock has been itching like crazy. The doc told me that chylmadia is also very easy to get from cocksuckers and that a person can be a carrier for quite a while before symptoms show up in the recipient of the blow job. What an eye opener! Although the STD tests came back negative, I guess I'll wear a condom next time I get sucked. :(

<I>What's the point? Might as well go sightseeing with a blindofld on. Swim in a three piece suit.

So you get the clap. You take one pill and it's gone. Life is to be experienced. Bad things sometimes happen. Not the end of the world.</I>

What's the point??? Let me be your seeing-eye catt on this one Yogiman.

The point is to be careful for yours and others health sake. Not all STD's are cured by "one pill" and not everyone has the same reactions to either the disease or the cure. AND not all STD's are curable. Too many people have died due to either ignorance or being aloof to the fact that they can fall prey to disease.

Sure bad things sometimes happen, but anyone with half a brain cell would know enough to try to avoid the bad so that the experience of life is better.

I won't deny the fact that there are a large number of posters to these threads that openly engage in risky behavior and that is their choice albeit a bad one. Perhaps they are indeed sightseeing with a blindfold on.

But to just think "Who cares if I have a disease that I can spread to others... I'm gonna have my fun anyhow." - that's an indication of premeditated stupidity.

just amazing!
 

I am amazed at the replies I am getting to my "alert" or "warning".

I posted it to this site due to the possibility of visitors that view the messages and tips on where to meet to let them know that, if they are bi-sexual or gay with a partner, and enjoy what they feel is "safe sex" THEY STILL NEED TO GET TESTED! As one reply stated, the symptoms can hide and not be caught till its too late. If these same fellas "go home to the girlfriend or wife" or "boyfriend/partner" and conduct a normal, albeit, straight/safe sexual performance, SHE/HE is at risk for coming down with something!

JUST THINK OF WHAT THAT DISCUSSION WOULD BE LIKE!

I had to have the same type of conversation with my boyfriend after I spread it to him. IT'S NOT A FUN CONVERSATION! We BOTH had to go get treated!

I posted this as a warning to all that think they are "playing safe". "SAFE PLAY" is NOT what it was 5 or 10 years ago! TIMES HAVE CHANGED! If you are suckin cock in restrooms, gyms, car garages, alleys, theatres and sex clubs and won't go any farther with the sex play (i.e. anal, swallowing cum) to avoid coming down with something, YOU ARE NOT OUT OF THE WOODS! YOU still could be spreading it around.

TAKE CARE OF YOURSELVES, GUYZ! Go get tested (some places its annonymous) get treated and lets try to curb the infection rate. Maybe we can all get back to the regular, good ol oral sex that we all seem to LOVE on this site! :(

This is not true. Nothing has changed in the last ten years. AIDS was with us in 1994, and every other STD has been with us FOREVER.

I wanted to avoid this thread, but I think it's worth a few comments now.

I have STRONGLY disagreed with Yogi about other issues, yet this time around, I see his point. While I am not nearly as blasé and jolly about the subject of STDs as he seems to be, there is no reason to get in an uproar over a case of the clap.

The original post was intended as a caring and considerate reminder and it was thoughtful of someone to share his story so that we all can give some additional thought to something we may push out of our minds far too often. Nothing wrong with that. This is why I didn't respond -- there was nothing to say. Good advice, just let it be.

Yet there is no need to sit around and fret or get overly paranoid. While it IS true that the clap and syphilis are sometimes symptomless, it is pretty rare, at least in the United States, for these STDs to go unnoticed for long. ABSOLUTELY we can spread these diseases around -- and we do. They are on the rise as of late. That's not good news. By the same token, SOMETHING preventable is on the rise every freaking year. Are we going to become terrified to live our lives because of it, are are we going to keep a level head and not succumb to EITHER reckless and wanton behavior OR crippling paranoia?

Once again, I make my case for a HAPPY MEDIUM.

HIV is DEADLY. There is no cure. It is symptomless for MANY years. You can spread it to others by being a fool. It is entirely preventable. Most other STDs can be taken care of, show symptoms much more often, and generally speaking, do NOT kill you (at least not as a sure thing, as HIV does).

So this is where MOST of us seem to draw the line. "Safer sex" as a means of preventing and (hopefully) someday stopping the spread of HIV, a deadly disease. Most of us will not give up other forms of sex, things which are PROVEN to be safer.

KD won't let a guy suck him or vice versa without a condom. This is HIS choice. It doesn't mean he lives in fear -- he's simply made his own assessment of what level of risk he is willing to take. He's acted on this and stands firm. That's admirable. I respect that decision -- but it is not acceptable for ME.

Yep, I'm at risk for orally transmitted STDs -- and that's a risk I am well aware of. If I put on a condom on my dick to get sucked, I'd never get sucked. I'd feel nothing, I wouldn't get hard, and I'd end up with no sex life at all. I may as well live in a monastery and get it done with. This is MY personal choice, my acceptable level of risk. It's up to the guys who want to suck my dick to decide for themselves what THEY want.

AIDS is different. I refuse to have it on my conscience that I could contract or spread a fatal disease by behaving foolishly. Doing so would put other human beings at risk for death. I won't do it. I draw the line at unsafe sexual practices that have a high risk of HIV transmission. And to be very honest here -- I think the vast majority of men out there share my choice. Gay sex may not be necessary for the procreation of the species, but as MEN, we are biologically driven to have sex. Give it up completely? No... it ain't gonna happen.

I agree -- the clap and syphilis are often TOO lightly discussed. They are often used as television jokes. In this day and age, they've become funny in light of the fact that there's this virus out there that is SO much more deadly. Let's be totally honest now... if any of us had a choice, we'd EASILY pick a curable and treatable STD over AIDS, wouldn't we?

One thing not mentioned here which bugged me -- the statement from a doctor that men who do "oral only" are more likely to spread the clap. I am dubious about this. Hasn't this doctor considered that men who engage in even MORE dangerous behavior are just as likely to spread the clap? In fact, men with HIV who still suck dick are MUCH more likely to have ANOTHER STD -- or a wide variety of contagious infections. Men who fuck almost always also SUCK and get sucked as a prelude to anal intercourse, and sometimes instead of it if they can't get it. HIV puts us at a higher risk of contracting and spreading OTHER STDs. I think this doc isn't looking at the whole picture here. Fuck me for disagreeing with a doc -- but I do.

The matter of explaining these types of situations to your partner, wife or girlfriend -- well, that's another topic entirely. You screw around, you take the risks, you'd better be prepared to face the consequences. I have no pity for anyone having to go through this situation, except maybe the unsuspecting partner (no offense to one of my buds out there -- but he already knows this and it doesn't mean I don't like him).

Just use a little common sense, guys. Have a bit of decency toward your partner. If you're cheating, ask yourself WHY and deal with it.

Don't be reckless, don't be a fool -- but don't be a hermit and live your life in fear, existing on Prozac or Paxil to keep you calm.

THINK before you act. Weigh your options, educate yourself, be aware of the risks and stick to your guns regarding your own personal level of risk.

If I spend my life eating McDonald's Quarter Pounders for lunch every single day, I'm not going to have much success warning anyone else when I find out my cholesterol level is higher than Cheech Marin circa 1967. Anyone with half a brain (maybe less) already knows this.

Gentle reminders, a sharing of a story -- that's totally cool. Freaking out is not.

What has changed?
 

Thanks to Blondbuzzed for staying on his course. He has had a bad experience and is sharing it here with us, hoping that we might be more alert to the risks involved. Lots of people read these boards and lots of guys have been alerted. Good Work!

The same goes to Straycatt and Samgone. Way to go!

If anyone thinks that you sometimes 'freaked out a bit' and that this 'aint a biggie' and 'what the hell, shit happens anyway', la, la, la, reconfirm their right to think so. (We live in a free country, don't we?) It is your health, your well-being and last but not least, your medical bill at stake here. (Dr. Danny claimed in one of his postings that he had bought his first house solely on gonohrea. Ain't this telling?) You are very qualified to feel about it the way you do! Eventually, yours is the right to err on the side of safety as much as it is theirs to err on the side of risk. I feel very cool about being able to say, dude, I care when shit happens in your life. The other guys are very free to say that no shit in other people's lives is big enough for them to admit that they care. That's how I see 'cool' and that's how they see 'cool'.

I do very gladly agree with Scruffy that 'nothing has changed in the last 10 years in terms of the safe sex.' What has changed is our perception of what is 'safe', conditionally speaking and what is 'risky', conditionally speaking, too.

Some 10 years ago, safe sex was largely defined in terms of 'make sure, you wear a condom, if you are an anal top and conversely, make sure your top wears a condom, if you are an anal bottom. Do not share the same tooth-brush and beware of using the same needles and syringes, if you are an intravenous drug user'. Such policies failed to stop AIDS completely but certainly helped towards reducing the numbers of new seroconversions. Life for many of us, avid cruisers, started returning to normalcy and few sex clubs (if not spas) (re-) opened up in San Francisco, too. Lots of folks moved (back) to the city in the early to mid-1990s; myself, included. Yes, we were having a ball of a kind, too. The party, if on a reduced scale, went on.

Towards the end of the 1990s a significant upsurge in new cases of chalmydia, syph, clap, Hep B and C, etc. has been reported by the SF health authorities. AIDS was still big in our eyes but a host of other, mostly curable STDs virtually had a party of their own, too. In 2000, AIDS activists started giving away small key-chains with a flash light and detailed instruction how to inspect a penis for tell-tale signs before taking it into your mouth. I would have found that humorous, if I did not know better.

Europeans have been always more cautious when describing the risks of oral sex and various groups and organizations in Germany started recommending wearing protection even when having oral sex only, early in the day. I have never come across any report on the upsurge of STD infections here (am in Europe at the moment) and certainly no one was distributing those little flash lights. :D

There is a growing tendency to include 'oral sex with condom' recommendation into the general guidelines and definitions of safe sex. (I am not saying that anyone had done so, so far, but I see a trend there.)

My bottomline:

The decision to use condoms with any kind of sex is always an individual decision, no matter how harsh the consequences might be, for both yourself and the others.

You might wish to reconsider your present sexual practices and re-estimate your risk levels. Living in a committed, monogamous relationship is very different from cruising the PowerExchange or the Steamworks, five times a week and partying on the buffet of seemingly endless debauchery. Or having few, tame regular buddies who come to service you on a regular basis, for that matter.

I happen to have a very 'active' sexual life. I also happen to be a keen observer and have no problem in chatting up the guys, if I want to. So, I met this 'absolutely gorgeous, A&F, All-American, and what not 'college dude, couple a weeks ago in SF. He hits one of the sex clubs 2-4 times a week, and starts early in the evening. Very few guys turn his blow job offer down and he is GOOD! He says his personal record was to suck 44-45 cocks in one night. He said, he lost the precise count. His goal is to reach 60 for one night and, yeah, if the guy shoots, he swallows. If the guy wears a condom, he'll suck him, too. After all, a cock is a cock is a cock... rite? I am wondering, what is his health status after having trained for this kind of sexual Olympics over the last six months? I guess, Dr. Danny could buy half-a-villa in Italy and stuff the fridge full of food for his growing nephew, just trying to cure this one single dude. (K, I am kiddin'!)

There is no final answer to this. Your truth and your decision will always be yours and only yours to live with. If this gave you some food for thought, we have all done a very good job here.

KD:D

Epidemiology
 

From an article in the Southern Voice
I see no reason why this statistic would be restricted to HIV only. There is other good information in the article that I hadn't seen before as well; it's worth reading.

My guess is that glory holes, especially in ABSes, would also rank high in disease transmission rates because of the anonymity. Has anybody seen any studies on this?

So guys, play safe. Cruise parks, not bathhouses. Or at least do that when you are in LA.

Better yet, if it's written in The Southern Voice, ignore it altogether.

Not one of my favorite papers.

Oh, and Samgone: chlamydia doesn't itch. It burns and causes a relatively clear drip, unlike gonorrhea. Yeast will itch. You can get both/either from oral sex. If your itch hasn't cleared, get back to your doctor!

Dr Danny

It's all about BEHAVIOR. HIV is a preventable disease. We seem to forget that.

If you go to a bathhouse and do NOT engage in unsafe sex, do NOT compromise your own standards... there's probably very, very little concern regarding your choice of cruising venue.

Problem is... the atmosphere of security (little chance of being busted) and the abundance of possible partners sometimes elicits alternate behavior in some of the weaker-willed men out there.

It's much easier to get fucked in a bathhouse than it is in a public park. Hell, there's even shower stalls where you can rinse off the lube...

It makes sense to figure that men who SEEK OUT and UTILIZE this atmosphere might possibly be higher risk partners. But if we REFUSE to engage in unsafe sex when offered -- it's very likely there's little to worry about, at least as far as getting HIV is concerned. Our risk for OTHER STDs certainly goes up, since HIV positive men are more likely to be infected with something else, too.

The thing is... men who go to bathhouses also cruise the parks, the streets, the bars, the internet... No matter WHERE you are, there's no telling who has what. It could be a mistake to instill a false sense of security that one place is safer than another. What's safer and what is not is STILL the sexual act in question.

I've seen a lot of scary shit in my day... most notably scenes involving lines of men ready to fuck a willing bottom, gang-bang style (sling optional). While we can easily (or even with some effort) walk away from such reckless behavior, how do we know for sure that the guy we meet a week from now hasn't gleefully taken up residence in that sling for hours on end at some point? We don't... We might meet this guy in a public place, maybe online, maybe in a bar. He may not want to tell us of his occasional romps in the sling. We may express safer sex concerns to him and he could easily pretend to agree, if he wants to get us in bed badly enough.

So it's still up to each of us to play it safe and do the right thing, no matter where we are and no matter who we are with.

Thanks, Dr. Danny. I would have never thought of a yeast infection, primarily because I thought it could be gotten from a female.

The itch is gone, although I ended up taking the medication (to cure the STDS) before I found out the STD tests were negative.

Probability
 

Gents, life is aleatoric, i.e. a crapshoot; nothing's guaranteed. Here is how the numbers work out on catching an STD.

You take the probability that your potential partner has a particular STD, multiply that by the probability that it will be transmitted to you in the sex act you contemplate and multiply that by the harm that can occur to you if you catch that STD (very high for HIV, low for getting a hickey from a blowjob). Now sum that formula over all potential STDs and don't forget to include some factor for unknown diseases. After all, HIV was not known until 1984 and who knows what else lurks out there waiting to escape from some obscure Asian or African mammal into the human population? That is your "expected harm" from any single encounter and you can try to make a judgement about whether the risk exceeds the reward. Obviously, the more encounters you have the higher your total expected harm becomes.

This is pretty abstract but think of it in terms of playing Russian Roulette. The number of encounters you have is analogous to the number of times you pull the trigger. The ratio of the number of bullets to cylinders in the revolver is analogous to the probability of an infected partner times the probability of transmission. I suppose that harm could be modeled by playing RR and pointing the gun at various body parts, not just your head.

Now I am not proposing that cruisers carry pocket calculators around with them to calculate the odds but there is an important lesson to be learned by looking at the formula. Your expected harm can be reduced in a number of ways, by not pulling the trigger, by removing bullets from the cylinders and by not pointing the gun at your head. All are equally effective (but estimating the probability of transmission is surer than estimating the probability of an infected partner). If you want to be really safe you do all three. So I think that avoiding statistical populations of infected people is a reasonable part of a sexual hygiene program.

Based on several postings on CFS and reports of a local syphilis epidemic being traced to a single bathhouse I was not surprised to read the results presented in the Southern Voice article and thought that others might benefit. In my effort to reduce my expected harm I am always interested in learning more information about where the risks are. Any time anyone has epidemiological information please feel free to post the link.

Probability
 

Gents, life is aleatoric, i.e. a crapshoot; nothing's guaranteed. Here is how the numbers work out on catching an STD.

You take the probability that your potential partner has a particular STD, multiply that by the probability that it will be transmitted to you in the sex act you contemplate and multiply that by the harm that can occur to you if you catch that STD (very high for HIV, low for getting a hickey from a blowjob). Now sum that formula over all potential STDs and don't forget to include some factor for unknown diseases. After all, HIV was not known until 1984 and who knows what else lurks out there waiting to escape from some obscure Asian or African mammal into the human population? That is your "expected harm" from any single encounter and you can try to make a judgement about whether the risk exceeds the reward. Obviously, the more encounters you have the higher your total expected harm becomes.

This is pretty abstract but think of it in terms of playing Russian Roulette. The number of encounters you have is analogous to the number of times you pull the trigger. The ratio of the number of bullets to cylinders in the revolver is analogous to the probability of an infected partner times the probability of transmission. I suppose that harm could be modeled by playing RR and pointing the gun at various body parts, not just your head.

Now I am not proposing that cruisers carry pocket calculators around with them to calculate the odds but there is an important lesson to be learned by looking at the formula. Your expected harm can be reduced in a number of ways, by not pulling the trigger, by removing bullets from the cylinders and by not pointing the gun at your head. All are equally effective (but estimating the probability of transmission is surer than estimating the probability of an infected partner since you have more control over it). If you want to be really safe you do all three. So I think that avoiding statistical populations of infected people is a reasonable part of a sexual hygiene program but certainly not the only or most important part.

Based on several postings on CFS and reports of a local syphilis epidemic being traced to a single bathhouse I was not surprised to read the results presented in the Southern Voice article and thought that others might benefit. In my effort to reduce my expected harm I am always interested in learning more information about where the risks are. Any time anyone has epidemiological information please feel free to post the link.

Stats and more Stats...
 

Hey Pike,

I agree with your reasoning on the stats and probabilities. Well-written.

Yet, I would never stop thinking about the story of the Three Big Lies. A lie, a big lie and statistics.

I have little doubt that statistics very ultimately works. And I see every virtue in getting informed to the best of your ability about the environment you may (or may not) choose to step in.

The problem with all the facts and information is how to interpret them to your best benefit. If I know that a particular bathhouse is a dangerous spot for whatever reason, I will think twice about going there and if I choose to do so, I will double my usual levels of attention. That's all fine.

However, I must never disregard the fact that this presumption does not work the other way around, ie., that I can afford to be careless or even less careful, if I am not entering the 'red zone'. (I do not think you ever said that but am trying to emphasize this point.)

Scruffy is very right. This is so much more about your behaviour than about the environment. There is a substantial number of people on the go. There is no way on earth for me to know that the guy I messed around last night in Zurich did not come straight from the indicted bathhouse. Or that he has ever been in America at all, for that matter.

Getting to know someone is really a hardly viable alternative these days. I would stop short of placing my well-being upon the mercy of someone who has come up with a story of his life. Even if his story is true. Do we have to look into the stories of all of his previous partners and how do we go about doing that?

My bottomline: do inform yourself and make qualified decisions based upon the knowledge you have. But do not apply the laws of statistics literally. They work very well for groups and segments, strata of population or classes of objects. Their applicability to individual destiny is highly limited.

And we all agree that shit happens. And most of us here are willing to go a long way to make sure that the shit does not happen to us and those who are close to us. I cannot quite see a better working strategy. But I'd be more than happy to listen to all the other suggestions.

KD:D

Using Probability Safely
 

KewlDewd66 wrote:
Correct, I didn't say that and I have never said that. The other responders who somehow managed to infer that did so based on their own predilections or on the attitudes of the gay milieu. I'm a belt and suspenders kind of guy. Actually, I'm a belt and suspenders and duct tape kind of guy.
Mathematically, this is not so. The probability of an infected partner holds an equal weight with the probability of transmission; they are multiplied together. After all, you can't catch something from someone who hasn't got it!

Practically, as I mentioned in my probability essay, it is difficult to accurately know the disease status of any potential partner. You have much more control over the transmission probability. Still, safer sex is not safe sex (condoms do have some probability of breaking; it is possible to transmit AIDS by kissing) so it makes sense to use several methods to increase safety. The bottom line is that if I pick a partner out of a population that has half as many disease carriers then I have halved my chance of being infected, regardless of how small or large the transmission probability is. Reducing either probability increases your chance of health but reducing them both increases your margin of safety even more.
No, but you can get information about someone even before having anonymous sex. A guy you see in a bathhouse getting fucked bareback by a long line of guys is certainly riski<u>er</u> than someone who you meet in a bar who is just interested in oral. The guy in the bar <u>might</u> have spent last night being fucked bareback but the other guy did with 100% certainty. Why not choose the less risky alternative?
I have to disagree. After each event you are either infected or not but that does not mean probability is not involved. The disease transmission process is so complicated and depends on so many contingencies that you have to make probability estimates based on all factors and to skew the odds in your favor by taking advantage of every factor. There are no certainties; you have to use a probilistic approach. I think a reasonable goal is to reduce your chances of contracting HIV to 1 in 10,000 per year, about the same as being killed in a car wreck in the US.

In another thread someone asked the question "what would be different if there were no HIV"? In my view not much because the male drive to promiscuity is so strong that if there were no HIV then there would be something else that would put a break on having unprotected sex. After all, HIV went from being an unknown, extremely rare, hard to transmit disease to a global pandemic in less than 20 years largely through the agency of gay male sexual behavior.

Basically, male promiscuity will expand until something stops it. What? I can think of several candidates right now: drug resistant syphilis or one of the rare viral hepatitises. There might have been a longer duration when no inhibitions were present but eventually they would be created or come to light.

Now that I'm back, I must take umbridge with a few points. (Spelling is my greatest flaw, mathematical prowess is my second)

First, you are not going to get HIV via kissing. Having a dork rammed down your throat while lips are pressed together is kind of hard to imagine. And the odds of deepkissing a guy/gal, with bleeding oozing gums, cram packed with HIV virus, just after you get out of the periodontist's chair after having extensive gum work done is virtually inconceivable to me. You can make the same case for handshaking and mosquito bites. It doesn't happen.

Next, the global HIV transmission pandemic was not the result of gay male sexual behavior. It was in the US, where thank God, we have such a low HIV/AIDs burden when compared to the world.

This pandemic was well underway before that flight attendant stuck his dick into some poor schmuck in some unknown LA bathhouse in the mid 1970s. It "exploded" here with some 11 cases being reported in 1981. I haven't checked my stats lately, but here in the US we may be dealing with a cumulative 1,000,000 infections, a large number of whom progressed to AIDs and have subsequently died. The rate of tranmission here in the states is extremely low, when compared to the world in general. The reality for the planet is that in 10-15 years, all economic progress in Russia will cease to exist. India, which briefly lifted its head into a global techno economy will be decimated. China will bear the brunt of close to half a billion deaths within the next 20-30 years. Africa is gone. Southern/South Africa will not exist as we know it. All those democratic strides. End of aparthied. Waste of effort. Meaningless. Nothing. Nada. Today, 25% of the population is infected, 100% die, and most of em are still fucking without condoms.

No my friends. We may be a lot of things, good and bad, but we as a gay community did not unleash this horror on the world. Heterosexuals, and IV drug users did, and continue to do so. The gay contribution is miniscule (thought I admit, hardly non-existent)

Now have a good day.

Dr Danny

cutguy wrote: Check out this: http://www.hivpositive.com/f-HIVyou/...u/Kissing.html
I'm not saying that it is at all likely, just possible.
My point was not that gays are the majority transmitters but that the speed was much greater due to gay promiscuity. The disease broke out of some ape population in Africa, spread thruout east Africa because of the Ugandan civil wars and the next thing pops up among gays in urban centers in the US and Europe. I'm sure that it would have spread all over the world eventually, just not in 20 years.

Question for Dr Danny
 

Not sure if I have an STD or not but I did get sucked off on Monday. It is now Thursday and I am have some irritation in the urethrea (sorry, I am sure that is not how it is spelled). In the past, I have had clamydia and I know the symtoms for that. This has no clear discharge, just the irratation. My question is: will a 500 mg tablet of Levaquin clear up whatever I have. I was fortunate to date a doctor for several months and he gave me several sample packets (courtesy of his drug rep friends, but it was for a cold virus I had). Thanks for the advice.

p.s. I know....I should have been more careful but I had just broken up with my bf and was on the rebound. Not my normal behavior (at least not recently).

I promised myself that I would be non judgemental in my answer on this BB. (I'll break the promise after answering the question)

A single levoquin tablet should cure a penile gonorrhea infection. However, there are a number of asian strains that are resistant to fluroquinolone therapy, and it is not recommended for people who acquire the infection in SE Asia, or Hawaii, and probably California.

You certainly could have been infected with gonorrhea from your insertive oral activity. Typically though, you have that thick, yellow-green, pussy discharge rather than the simple irritation you describe. Since you DON'T have classical symptoms, my recommendation is to NOT pop the levoquin, and DO see your doctor. Also, STDs love to travel in groups. You may well have GC, and have also been infected with chlamydia again. It's just too soon to be symptomatic from the chlamydia, and a single tab of levoquin will not knock it out. And you could also be harboring a host of other nasty things. Again, this good doctor recommends your seeing someone, before it becomes impossible to accurately diagnose you because of self medication.

Now the lecture: More your doctor's fault than yours. Levoquin is a very potent drug. We are seeing levoquin drug resistance all over the place, especially in bugs that make themselves at home in HIV positive patients. Your doctor had no business giving you any antibiotic for a cold, much less this particular one! It would not have helped you, you could have had an allergic reaction to it- which would have been far worse than the "cold" it was (not) designed to cure- and it promotes the growth of bacteria that are resistant! Guys, antibiotics have a very narrow range of use; they don't cure everything known to man, and most things infectious that are known to man cannot be cured with antibiotics.

Do I sound pissed off enough? It's a major pet peeve of mine.

Please, don't pop the pill, call your doctor (or another one!), and get properly checked out. For all you know, you might have gotten a minor abrasion in a very tender spot that will heal by itself. Keep me posted

Dr Danny

Thanks Dr Danny. I appreciate your candor. I hadn't taken the levaquin and I will wait a few more days to see what transpires. I figured it was too early to show symptoms too but thought I would ask the question anyways. I will get checked out next week too just to be safe.

I decided to check out this board tonight because today's Washington Blade (7/16/2004) had two full page ads regarding a rise in syphllis cases and the need to be checked as sometimes STDs can be without symptoms. I immediately began worrying about my own sexual conduct which is almost always oral, if it occurs at all lately. Most people on these boards give the impression that they think of oral sex as a no-risk sexual activity. I know when I have cruised around an adult theater I have never noticed anyone getting out a condom before oral sex and with the openness of the people and the lighting it is possible to notice this. I know, however, that I have been influenced by the posts on this Web site that never seem to mention safe oral sex or even disparage the use of condoms in oral sex. I have not used them, but can't imagine that oral with a layer of latex is very good for either partner.

I did pick up some itching a couple of years ago after one encounter and went to the doctor, who found that it was a urinary infection. Unfortunately, he also found the my PSA had gone up to 8 and I began tests for prostate cancer that eventually showed that I had that much worse disease. (Not caught from somebody else, I assume). In this case a minor infection helped to find a much worse one, so maybe somebody was looking over me that night.

I see quite a few guys look for partners who are bi and married and older, (I am not married now, but bi and older). I suppose they think those are less likely to have HiV. I have read that older men actually have a higher rate of HIV because they often cannot get hard enough for a condom (like me).

In the countries where AIDS is wiping out millions of people the disease has gotten into the general population, including women (married and single) and children. I hope that does not happen here, but it could.

Finally, I am not sure what I will personally do, but believe it will hard for me to start using a condom in oral sex. I'll give it a try though. I have not even tried anal, but wouldn't without a condom. Getting an erotic massage can be relaxing and satisying and even when paid for, not too expensive. Even getting a jo from a partner can be nice, if not as good as oral.

I am glad this long thread was here as it had many good posts that were helpful for me to sort out my concerns. I guess I am convinced that unprotected oral sex is still risky, especially if there are a lot of those bugs out there.

Bi :o

Lid or Parachute or Raw
 

I have not posted here in a while but have now returned to weigh in on this topic. Here's my story:

I have done "oral" WITHOUT a condom twice. The first time was in 1979 (yes, 1979) with a friend and the last time in 1998 from a "hot college guy" (yes, 1998, 19 years later). After the 1998, oral session, I came down with a SEVERE throat infection in my tonsils 2 days later. I went to a walk-in clinic and and then had to go to an Ears/Nose/Throat guy to have them aspirated and was given some Clindalmycin (sp). After a week, everything was ok. I've not done oral since, condom or not.

Background:
I don't know how it is where you all are but I went to a walk-in clinic and the doc first game me Zirithromycin (sp) because he thought I might (MIGHT) have Gonorhea (the tests came back negative). I did tell him I had oral sex 4 days earlier and the next day got this bad sore throat, accompanied by a horrid mouth odor. He then referred me to a Ears/Nose/Throat guy who did the aspiration and gave me the Clindamycin. He NEVER told me what was in the fluid drawn out of my tonsils and treated me like I was some "slut" who was going to missuse the meds he gave me. He would not give me a refill but told me if I needed one I had to come back to see him. Personally speaking, I think the guy had issues with gay and/or black patients. It was embarrassing enough to have to fess up about my personal business but I wanted to get well and just got the meds and got the hell out of there. Some docs are real shits about sexual matters.

Odd Question: I thought the "hot college guy" was acting strange like he was trying to "give me something". I know that sounds strange but I should have trusted my instincts and not have hooked up with him. Luckily, whatever it was I got from him was cured but this just goes to show you it could have been worse. When I went to the doc at the walk-in clinic, I was telling him that along with the horrid mouth odor, I also had an "oily/metal" taste in my mouth. Evidentally, this bit of info signaled something in him that he decided to give me some Zirithromycin. Whenever a doc gives meds and DOES NOT tell me the side affects or much of anything about them, I go to my local bookstore and research the med before going to the pharmacist. One of the side affects of a Climydia medication is an "oily/metalic" taste in the mouth (I forgot which med it is). I often wonder if this guy I hooked up with had "something" he was being treated for and his meds had not kicked in yet. If any of you happen to know what that medication is that leaves this "oily/metalic" taste in your mouth, please provide that info to us readers of this thread - Dr Danny, can you help?

Aftermath
Unless you absolutely positively know the person you are doing oral or anal with is d&d free - BE CAREFUL - protect yourself or use 1 or perhaps 2 condoms. You'll get laughed at and some guys may pass you up; at least you'll live and not end up potentially catching something you CANNOT GET RID OF - - AIDS!

This thread sits far too high on the paranoiaometer for my own personal taste, so rest assured I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion here.

I DID think it important, however, to mention that you should NEVER use TWO condoms for anal sex. The last poster here is vague regarding which form(s) of sex he is including with his recommendation to maybe use two condoms.

Two condoms actually increase the chances of breakage. One is quite sufficient. Friction, heat... latex upon latex... not cool.

Furthermore, condoms do not necessarily protect against EVERY possible sexual infection that exists. HPV would be just one example with which we are probably all familiar by now, as it has been discussed quite often.

Just use a single condom for anal sex, and make your own personal choice as to what level of risk you are willing to accept for other forms of sex.

Yeah V, you probably had a Climydia Infection. The symptoms in the urinary tract are similar to the big G.....but from the time I had each, I think that gonnorreah is worse! 2.5 million cases of Gono reported each year. Think of all the non reported cases.

Scruffy, its not being parinoid but many people do not realize that these 2 common sexually transmited bacteria are quite common in oral contact. Married men beware!

Question To Dr Danny:
Regarding my previous post, please provide the name of the VD medication that leaves an "oily/metallic" taste in your mouth. I found the name of it in a book "Best Pills / Worst Pills" but forgot what the name of it is.

Regarding the "2 Condoms", as for "anal", I know if you use an oil-based lube then 1 or 2 condoms for anal is assentially useless as the oil will dissolve the condom. I assumed (and I could be wrong) that 2 condoms used during anal (if you use a water-based lube) would be better but still not a 100% sure bet to not catch an STD. I'm familiar with using a water-based lube w/Nonoxynal 9 but then all these articles came out about that not being a good thing to do so I'm really sure what to do now. I won't use just 1 comdom because (other than shit) you never know what else is up in some guys ass (VD, Crisco, etc). That reminds me of something else. I went to a clinic in the late 1980's and this nurse (very professional acting) told me how women come in with all kinds of infections and "burns" because they use spermicides and don't douche to wash that stuff out. So you can only imagine what's up in some male or female's ass! I have used 1 condom for oral and when I say "I won't do oral or receive oral unless a condom is used", the guys think I must have something. It's a real turn off. I don't care. I've learned my lesson.

probably Biaxin. It's pretty characteristic. The drug is secreted in saliva, and thats what about 10% of us taste. I've been on it once (NOT for an STD; sinus actually) and it's pretty raunchy stuff. Flagyl/Metronidizol, used for trichonomonas, more common in women rather than men also give you a really awful metallic taste. I'm not aware of Zithromax (azithromycin) causing a bad taste.

Dude... I have already told you why it is not a good idea to use two condoms: the friction between the two increases the risk of having them break. Friction creates heat. Both heat and friction degrade the integrity of the condoms. If you don't want to believe me, hit the net, do some research on your own. One condom is enough. The only additional comfort two condoms provides for you is in your mind. Obviously, you are very much afraid of not only STDs (which is a healthy fear), but you seem to be afraid of just about anything that might be found in the human body, male or female (this is an irrational and unhealthy fear).

Your best solution, then, would be to consider celibacy.

It seems obvious that you aren't going to listen to reason, however, so rest assured this is my last attempt to explain the error in your way of thinking about your problem. Someday, when you pull out and find tattered condoms hanging off your penis, feel free to email me. I'll help you out getting through the waiting period for your HIV test results. You'll REALLY be freaking out then.

Damned Lies and Statistics
 

Startling statistics do shape our thinking about social issues. But all too often these numbers are wrong. Spotting bad statistics and learning to think critically about these influential numbers is essential for everyone who relies on statistical information to understand social problems.

Unfortunately, most people either naively accept the statistics we hear or cynically assume that all numbers are meaningless. There is an alternative approach to these numbers and few people employ it -- The Critical.

Being critical does not mean being negative or hostile -- it is not cynicism. The critical approach to statistics is thoughful; it avoids the extremes of both naive acceptance and cynical rejection of the numbers. Instead, being critical means to evaluate numbers, to distinguish between good statistics and bad statistics.

Lastly, statistics are not magical. Nor are they always true -- or always false. Nor need they be incomprehensible. The critical approach to statistics offers an effective way of responding to the numbers we are sure to encounter in the media and from politicians and activists. Being critical requires more thought, but failing to adopt a critical mind-set makes us powerless to evaluate what others tell us.

When we fail to think critically, the statistics we hear might just as well be magical. :rolleyes: :eek: