|
#2
23rd October 2005, 07:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
You probably want to hear the opposite but it is not 100% safe and nothing is in sex
If you think all of the people who have oral sex most of the population would be HIV Poz but I am not thinking about the guys who swallow. However my ex lover became infected when he was sucking a guy who did not even come, but the guy had gonorea , gave it to my ex in the throat . The guy did not know he was POZ and HIV piggy back on the gonorea. Result? HIV poz.       |
|
#3
23rd October 2005, 11:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that having unprotected oral sex (no matter if you are sucking or being sucked) really means exposing yourself to a whole host of nasty bugs. Even if HIV transmission rates via oral sex remain relatively low, most people would rather avoid having to deal with the problems other bugs bring with them.
I am an active cruiser alright. But I am not blind. The guy who is servicing me at the moment is most likely everything but a virgin mouth. Most guys go to cruising grounds, bars, saunas and ABSs in order to have as many partners and have as much sex as it is possible. I am certainly no exception. If you add 2 and 2..., you can quickly see that you are not having sex just with the guy, who is on his knees before you, but at the same time, with all the guys he has had sex with already... Only you can decide, if you want to take the risk of that magnitude. Round here, more and more guys are putting on a rubber before sticking their dicks into waiting mouths. Few years ago, almost half of the suckers would turn you down, if you insisted on wearing your condom. In the meantime, a few nasty infections later, coupled with pains, suffering, anguish and high medical costs, most dudes have grown quite a bit wiser. Practically, no one says 'No' to condom anymore. I would gladly agree with everyone who says that condom is an obstacle to having a full-blown pleasure (pun intended). Yet, when all is said and done, you want to go home, knowing that you did your utmost to protect both your partner and yourself. Again, everyone must decide, if they'd rather put the rubber on and admittedly suffer a reduced pleasure or if they'd rather go through sleepless nights, doctor's visits, lots of expensive drugs, etc. I made my choice long time ago. KD  |
|
#4
24th October 2005, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
If you get infected by oral sex then get on the HIV drugs - if you get on the drugs you can live a longer healthier life. I know people that are living 20+ years with HIV. Personally I swallow load after load all the time and I get tested every 2 months for years now and I am HIV-. Hey but each to his own and I am not saying you will not get infected by oral sex.
|
|
#5
30th October 2005, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not so sure HIV can piggy back on ghonorhea. Don't they entail two different types of transmission? One is more invasive and needs to get into the blood stream somehow. Ghnorrhea is way easier to catch. More then likely, your friend sucked a guy with loads of pre-cum and that is what did him in.
__________________
Cute 20 something country farm boy wanting to escape the watchful overbearing restrictive eyes of his christian parents and have sloppy naked sinful fun with you in the splendors of God's nature ...and/or in a mensroom |
|
#6
31st October 2005, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The HIV virus is a veryunstable virus.
This means that the transmission must be made in a 'temprature controled' situation, eg. needle, ass/cock, directly into open wound. I too have been 'going at it' for the better part of 25 years now and remain HIV negitive. Each person needs to make their own decision that they can live with.
__________________
If you don't ask ... |
|
#7
4th November 2005, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Viruses are also more resilient than bacteria. A virus can be stored and reactive when reintroduced to the proper medium and conditions. Bacteria will die on the shelf. If you read up on this you'll where three condoms.  |
|
#8
4th November 2005, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
The HIV virus is very unstable. What is it that you want us to "read up on?"
Of course, EricinHWood is part of the problem. He does not indicate what it is he wishes to swallow. I'm assuming it's not Grape NeHi soda pop. It he is talking about the ejaculate from a cock he is sucking, there are several issues to consider. Is the person ejaculating HIV+? Does EricinHWood have sores in his mouth or lesions in his esophagus where the virus could make a rapid invasion? If not, the saliva and stomach acids would most likely kill the virus if the ejaculator was HIV+. As to your remark about condoms, guys roll them on their cock. This much like wearing your rubbers, not wondering "where" they might be when you need them. |
|
#9
4th November 2005, 07:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Back to the old drawing board, I see... I find no evidence that HIV can "piggyback" per se along with bacterial STDs in the manner described above. HOWEVER -- the NOTION that individuals with OTHER STDs are at higher risk for both transmission and infection of HIV is quite correct. Many factors come into play here. General unsafe and promiscuous behavior is one of them: if a guy is out fucking everything that moves and not using any protection... it stands to reason that if he caught ONE STD he just might have caught another. Other factors include the open sores that some STDs exhibit, which naturally allow for an easier mode of entry for HIV and other STDs into the body. Additionally, though we aren't entirely certain WHY, it seems that people with TWO STDs are more likely to be MORE contagious than people with just ONE. In other words, if you have HIV AND gonorrhea you will probably be shedding MORE HIV AND more gonorrhea (virus and bacteria, respectively), thereby making you more contagious to your partner(s). One guy here is posting SECOND HAND information, stating that his ex sucked off a guy with gonorrhea AND HIV. This resulted in his partner becoming HIV poz AND catching gonorrhea. How do we know this to be true? How do we know his partner didn't get gonorrhea in the throat and then go out and suck ANOTHER guy with HIV? How do we know his partner is telling the truth and/or how do we know that his partner did not catch HIV from FUCKING someone else while getting his gonorrhea gift from the original dude? We don't know, we cannot know -- and therein lies the problem. It is, in fact, an ONGOING problem with HIV infection statistics. We most often have to rely on what someone tells us because it is nearly impossible in most cases to determine where, when or how someone became infected. The story posted above is POSSIBLE -- but it is by NO MEANS a certainty, no matter how much the poster wants to believe it -- he cannot EVER know for sure. It is just as likely that his ex is lying to save face as it is that his ex is telling the truth. The bottom line is that HIV infection from GIVING oral is certainly possible. It become more possible if someone has an active STD because HIV has an easier mode of entry into the bloodstream. It is also true that HIV is far more likely to be transmitted via anal intercourse and it is true that many men suck dick for twenty or thirty years and eat cum and never get infected. But we cannot use this alone to tell other people that taking semen into their mouths is safe. It is not "safe." It is "safer" than some other sexual acts. The choice is yours alone to make if you want to accept this level of risk, low as it might be. What you believe might be a very low risk situation might be higher risk because of factors you cannot possibly determine in the heat of passion, such as an additional, underlying STD of another nature. Or, as mentioned, the status of your OWN oral cavity. Do you have gingivitis? Did you recently bite your tongue or the inside lining of your cheek? If your partner happens to have HIV, does he even KNOW he's got it? Did you two discuss it? Probably not. And if you DO suck the cum from a poz guy -- it DOES matter what STAGE of infection he's currently in and it also matters if he has ANOTHER STD. It matters if he's on meds or not. It matters if he's got TWO strains of HIV as opposed to one. Clearly, we can see that the myriad possibilities make answering this question far more complex than it might seem at the surface. And this is EXACTLY why the science involved is so damn difficult. Therefore, the recommendations for certain sexual practices remain the same as they have for many years now. Since we are discussing oral sex, we'll stick to stating ONLY what is recommended for that: If you are going to have oral sex with someone, it is "safer" to be the orally insertive partner. The risk of catching HIV from BEING sucked off is pretty damn low -- but again, in THEORY, it is possible if MANY conditions are perfectly met. The risk goes up for the guy DOING the sucking. The risk goes even higher if the partner has a lot of pre-ejaculate. The risk goes even higher yet again if the partner ejaculates in your mouth. The distinction between swallowing and NOT swallowing is dubious at best. HIV is killed by stomach acids, but it must first travel down the throat where it has been shown that infection is possible from taking this route, through the tonsils and from general contact with the delicate mucosa of the esophagus. Spitting out semen may or may not matter -- HIV infection can occur in the mouth, too. Again, conditions must be JUST RIGHT for this to happen. But just because you brush your teeth three times a day and have healthy gums does NOT mean that you are "safe." The fact remains: you CANNOT KNOW for sure. The fact also remains: HIV infection from oral is FAR more difficult than HIV infection from unprotected anal. Again, it is true that millions of guys suck dick and eat cum for YEARS and do not get infected. But of the men who DO get infected, we simply CANNOT know if they got infected from oral ONLY or if it was another sexual act. Furthermore, if they DID get infected from oral and are telling us the truth, we cannot always know the mitigating circumstances that led to infection: ie., if the guy had a cut or sore in his mouth or another STD, etc. Yes, HIV IS a delicate virus. But guess what? It is BOTH delicate AND damn, fucking TOUGH, too. ENVIRONMENT matters. The SEXUAL environment of bodily fluids makes HIV very happy indeed. Left to dry on the bed linens -- it is of little concern. AMOUNT of virus matters, too. As does (in some cases) repeated exposure. Yes, you can get HIV from ONE EXPOSURE, no problem. But you can get it after MULTIPLE exposures, too. We are not sure if repeated exposure allows for the body to "give up" on fighting HIV each time it enters. SMALL amounts of HIV are destroyed by our immune systems. But if you get too much for your body to handle, and it enters MORE directly into the bloodstream... your body can't fight it all and once it enters your cells... that's it. Now, here's link containing all this information from the PREMIER website regarding HIV (and other STDs). The portion regarding the increased risk factor for HIV transmission when coupled with OTHER STDs is about two-thirds of the way down the page, but I suggest you read it ALL. http://www.thebody.com/sfaf/autumn00/std.html The above is pretty basic, "college level" material. The site itself, however, contains MUCH more complicated and detailed medical information if you care to spend some time there educating yourself, which is always a good idea. But for starters, at least there's a link to some plain, straight-talk about HIV and other STDs. I've grown VERY tired of nasty, catty faggots who can't keep a civil tongue -- this is a problem that has become more and more prevalent these days, and it is literally KILLING our community, in both spirit and BODY. If all we can do is berate someone who spouts a bit of slightly confused information (especially when that person has all good intentions), we are doing NOTHING to help SOLVE the problems we face as dicksucking brothers and cunt-licking sisters. All we're doing is creating tension and promoting derision. Keep this up and the REAL facts, the REAL information we ALL need to know will never reach the intended audience. We seem to forget that there are now TWO generations of gay men who have lived their entire lives with HIV in existence. There are YOUNG MEN out there who are uneducated despite this -- or maybe even BECAUSE of it and the resulting COMPLACENCY on the part of those who have lived the gay life BEFORE HIV ever existed. We can't shirk our responsibilities to these young men -- nor to the older men who have never taken the time to LEARN how to protect themselves. Yes, it is sometimes galling and frightening and it is easy to get uptight and offended when someone displays a lack of knowledge that we might consider plainly obvious. But if we just get bitchy about it and do NOT take a moment to TEACH what must be learned... WE are part of the problem and not the solution. WHY gay men are becoming more and more rotten to each other these days is a mystery to me and something for another post at another time. Yet it is worth stating here that this bad attitude is not only poor behavior in general, but as we can see... it can actually kill when it comes to something like HIV. EDUCATE, don't BERATE. Now, who wants to say something rude to me because I typed a lot of WORDS? How about instead you guys go read the link above? |
|
#11
6th November 2005, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"find no evidence that HIV can "piggyback" per se along with bacterial STDs in the manner described above."
You just want to ignore the facts. When my ex got infected the way I described it it really happened that way. Believe me I got the phone call Suck the guy off 2 days later has a terrible sore throat, fever swollen lymph nodes. Go to the MD did a culture test and did a viral test ( I guess something like that) and told him flat out that he was converting. 3 months or so later the test came back positive Now if you do not want to believe the story that is your right but I take offence to the fact that you say that this is second hand information or that my ex had unprotected sex and basically that I am lying. While it is true that some swallowers do not get sick this way I can now testify that I know one who is very dear to me Also I believe that if you play risky, it is like we said for motorcycle riders . They are 2 kind of bikers The one that have fallen and the ones that will fall Thanks |
|
#12
8th November 2005, 05:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dude...
I was DEFENDING you, you know. Sheesh. Your theory is HALF correct. I SAID it is entirely true that having one STD makes you MORE likely to catch another and/or PASS along one of them to a partner. This has been statistically proved -- but no one is entirely certain EXACTLY WHY it happens, though several theories lead the pack. The minor quibble is that there is no direct evidence the HIV is "piggybacking" along with a bacterial STD. In other words, HIV does NOT hitch a ride with gonorrhea -- but HIV CAN spread more quickly if someone has gonnorhea... or syphillis... or anything else. And the fact remains -- your story CANNOT be medically or scientifically verified -- but that doesn't mean there is NO credibility to it at all. In fact, once again... I DEFENDED the overall point you were trying to make: one STD means an increased risk for ANOTHER. I was referring to someone else who BERATED YOU when I said I'm fed up with catty fags! NO doctor can state with any certainty that HIV "piggybacked" along with gonorrhea in the case of your ex and was the cause of his seroconversion. There is NO WAY to prove this -- period. HOWEVER... TWO STDs often means a better chance of catching ONE or BOTH of them from an infected partner. So YES -- it is highly likely that gonorrhea did play a part in this. But by no means can we say exactly what happened on a physiological, cellular level. This is the point I'm trying to make here when it comes to defining HIV statistics and WHY it is SO difficult to state with any certainty that individual sexual acts are safe or unsafe or moderately safe. There are certainly many dudes out there who have swallowed HIV+ cum numerous times and NOT been infected. And then there's the unlucky bastards who do it ONCE and catch it. Far too many factors come into play and we are forced to rely on individual statements of "fact," which simply CANNOT be used as scientific evidence per se. Yet we must take into account that there is probably SOME truth to what we are told by newly diagnoses HIV patients. We must keep this information in mind and we can use it as a loosely defined variable when forming our hypotheses, but we cannot consider it to be irrefutable FACT. To do so would be to ignore the very foundations of the scientific method. Which is why it is necessary to put things into perspective and present the facts as we know them. We simply cannot trust word of mouth -- but we DO take it into consideration. And that's JUST how it should be until we know more. WHY this is important can be summed up nicely by referring to a guy I spoke with who wanted to get together with me many years ago. His EXACT words to me were: "I didn't know you could get HIV from anal sex." Now, that's an extreme example, but it just goes to show you that there are a LOT of misinformed individuals out there. And these sadly confused dudes can cause a LOT of trouble by having extremely unsafe sex without even having a clue as to what they are doing. So your basic idea is SOUND and VALID -- and I supported that. You taking offense to the FACT that your story is second hand is kind of silly -- it IS second hand. That doesn't mean there's NO truth to it -- it just means that we cannot use it as a means to draw a scientific conclusion! But you shouldn't feel bad about that -- we don't use ANY individual's statement of fact as SCIENTIFIC FACT when we are calculating HIV risk and infection rates. These statements are considered and noted and taken into account -- but they are not deemed to be factual, indisputable evidence. This is why the CDC lists so very few cases of HIV as a result of oral sex ONLY -- because there are only a very few cases which have been PROVED to be as such. The CDC readily admits there may be MANY more -- but these cannot be listed in the statistics because they rely on second-hand information and individual statements which may or may not be true. The very, very bottom line here, in simplest possible terms is this: Yeah, sucking dick is PROBABLY not going to net you a case of HIV. But it COULD. Many, many people, gay and straight, suck dick and eat cum and do NOT get HIV from doing so. But that doesn't mean you WON'T. So we each assess our own acceptable level of risk and decide what kind of sex life we wish to have -- and we can only hope for the best. |
|
#13
9th November 2005, 11:34 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
The fact that "a virus" is a parasite so small that is can infect a bacterial cell is Microbilogy 101. (see line 4 on next link)
http://www.victoriacollege.edu/~tara...es/Viruses.htm Yes, "piggybacks" IS an appropriate way to describe this transmission. While HIV may miss it's mark when other infections are not present, STDs manifest damage that allows HIV to enter the body. The time that a virus can live outside the body is sort of a mute point on this thread that I was off base with a little. More info provided... http://doctorndtv.com/faq/detailfaq.asp?id=1472 Quote:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../15480167.html Quote:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdgon.htm Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#14
16th November 2005, 05:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm about as fucking sick and tired of HIV as the rest of you guys, believe me. I wish the fucker would just go away so we could stop talking about it and start enjoying sex again, too.
But that's not about to happen any time soon. So I guess my nearly twenty years of discussing HIV isn't about to end any time soon, either. While it is true that viruses can and do replicate in bacteria, and are often created this way in laboratories as well as in nature, and while it is true that Microbiology 101 addresses this method of replication and infection... It is ALSO true that HIV does NOT replicate inside any other cell except those which contain the CD4 receptor protein on the surface, to which HIV binds. So if you want to detail the semantics of the term "piggyback," we can do that -- but I'd just as soon NOT. What I was inferring from the term "piggyback" was the notion that HIV binds itself to gonnococci or another bacterial STD cell and "hitches a ride" into the new host body via this method. THAT is incorrect -- and that is why I took exception to it. However, if someone wants to use the term "piggyback" to imply that larger doses of HIV are present and thusly make infection "easier" for the new host -- well... then it's JUST semantics of of little concern. I have no problem relinquishing the debate over a word, as long as the correct information is given. Now, I'll make this brief (because it's dull) and wrap it up (because I'm sick of it). I'll also put it into simplistic terms because quite frankly, sub-cellular chemical reactions really don't grab the attention of too many readers these days! We often refer to T-cells as CD4 cells (or the other way around, actually). They are also called "helper cells," and are a component of the human immune system. They are not the ONLY immune cells in the body, of course. But a SYSTEM is called a SYSTEM because all the pieces work TOGETHER to handle any given task. In this case, protect the human body from invaders. So the CD4 cells are very important as a part of the SYSTEM. Without them, the system fails, AIDS develops -- and that is that. CD4 is the protein sequence that "coats" the T-cell. Now, OTHER immune cells DO have this same protein. Consequently, HIV CAN and DOES infect those cells, too. However, for our purposes -- we can pretty much just focus on the T-cells. Very little information about HIV infection goes into much detail about the OTHER cells which contain the CD4 receptor protein. This is because... frankly... it really doesn't matter much. HIV MOSTLY targets the T-cells, so that's all you really need to know, unless perhaps you are ready to start working on a cure in a lab. So, for HIV to bind to a cell and infect it, the CD4 protein must be present. Human immune cells have this protein. As far as I know, no other cells, bacterial or otherwise, have the CD4 receptor protein and therefore cannot bind with HIV. (If I am wrong about this, by all means -- SHOW ME. I'd love to learn something new, but I seriously can't imagine it. Exhaustive research tells me otherwise, and I'd be happy to admit being wrong about this because if there are CD4 protein receptors elsewhere in nature, this would allow a new route toward a cure or vaccine prevention since it would give us many new ways to study HIV infection without worrying about human test subjects.) Now, the above parenthetical alludes to the fact that the "H" in HIV stands for HUMAN. No other species can catch HIV. Cats can get FIV (the "F" is for FELINE). Monkeys can get SIV (the "S" is for SIMIAN). But interspecies transmission of these viruses is NOT possible. And... damn lucky cats... there's a preventative vaccine for them! So... HUMAN cells can become infected with HIV. OTHER cells from other species CANNOT. Furthermore, the CD4 receptor protein must be present in order for HIV to bind to and infect the cell. To me, the term "piggyback" just doesn't cut it here, but that's OK. Now, everything else discussed here is certainly correct: if you have another STD, you are far more likely to catch HIV if you have sex with an infected individual. Since CD4 cells are abundant in areas of existing infection, if that infection is present in a person who has HIV... not only do you have CD4 cells en masse in the localized area of infection, but you also have HIV-infected CD4 cells en masse in the localized area of infection. It's easy to see WHY MORE infected cells increases the risk of further infection to another host. And mode of entry is another factor: open sores, etc. allow for greater chance for a non-infected person to get HIV into their body. Also, if you have syphilis, for example, and have an open sore, YOU have more CD4 cells near that lesion -- making for an even greater risk. So... HIV+ folks are more likely to pass it along if they have an STD. HIV neg folks are more likely to GET IT if they have an STD. It is POSSIBLE that the genetic mutation as mentioned in another thread with regard to those Nairobi prostitutes may have something to do with the CD4 receptor protein. For some reason, HIV cannot bind to this protein in individuals who have the mutation. Survival of the fittest comes to mind. In a few thousand years, perhaps the human genome will mutate so that EVERYONE has an innate immunity to HIV. Wouldn't that be nice? Too bad we can't hurry that along... at least not yet. Here's a shitload of links you can browse if you ever have a seriously dull weekend like I just did... Warning: the last one will certainly put you to sleep. http://www.thebody.com/oralsex.html http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/hivaids/ http://www.thebody.com/cria/forums/stds.html http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/transmission.htm http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/oralsexqa.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054174.htm http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/...20Protein.html I may have posted one or two of these before -- I don't feel like checking. Some repeat what we all agree upon and some repeat facts in a very basic way, but that's good for the youngins out there. |
Linear Mode
