Seriously

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...9&postcount=11

Here is the quote, in the instance that the post is modified (as a verified provider I cannot use the "quote" function in the forum in which the comment appears): "In fact, heterosexual sex is not even a prominant [sic] cause of HIV except in Africa. You can't give a lady any form of std orally unless she has mouth lesions. Stomach acids kill the bugs. "

So since we're not in Africa I guess anything goes? Are you seriously wanting to give the impression that you are advocating bare back sex as a safe practice (between a man and a woman) outside the African continent? That is how many people will read your post . . . Heterosexual transmission of HIV occurs frequently during unprotected intercourse regardless of geography!

And, I hate to burst you bubble, but the CDC (and most everyone else of any reasonable intelligence) disagrees with your statement - you CAN give a lady an STD regardless of the presence of a lesion in her mouth (and vice-versa).

Chlamydia, gonorrhea and a host of other STD's are routinely transmitted via oral sex and those bacterium do not require a "lesion"; they have been shown in the laboratory to survive in the mouth, the esophagus - even in the stomach!! Some STD's can even grow in the eyes and are transmitted through casual contact from one's hand.

With all due respect, this may be the most completely asinine posting I have ever read on ECCIE.

My personal preferences and those risks that I find acceptable to take in both my personal and professional life aside, this statement is completely foolish and inaccurate, bigbirddog. As a moderator here on ECCIE, you should know that your comments will carry a bit of extra "weight" with the membership in general - hopefully, your comment won't lead anyone (outside Africa) to an early grave.

- Jackie

You consider that post to be an endorsement for bareback sex?? I'm not seeing that. Just a few posts before that he made this post...

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1434201&postcount=7

...which acknowledges the risks associated with bareback sex. I'm not saying that his post is entirely accurate, however I'm not a doctor. Over the last decade, though, I've seen literally thousands of statements made by hobbyists regarding the risks of contracting STDs.....a large percentage of them being inaccurate. With that said, everyone who participates in this hobby should accept the risks that go along with it and protect themselves and their partners every time they participate. This is the most responsible practice for anyone on both sides of the coin.

St. C

St. C,

I admittedly did not see the post bigbirddog made prior in the thread (which you have linked to) . . . perhaps, the issue is one of context and how it was written (that which I have quoted in my initial post).

That said, your guidance is as usual, spot on:

[...] everyone who participates in this hobby should accept the risks that go along with it and protect themselves and their partners every time they participate. Originally Posted by St.Christopher

I hope that bigbirddog did not mean to give the impression that he has, as obviously STD's may be (and are) transmitted orally, and that this is an issue of "mistyping" (contextually).

Kisses,

- Jackie

I cited a well known public health fact, the low incidence of HIV transmission that results from heterosexual sex, and used it as an example, if you will, of misunderstanding causing fear. I did not, and would not, suggest that unmarried people engage in unprotected sex. Heterosexual transmission is thought to be more common in Africa because of the prevalence of rape, or at least that is what the public health authorities think. In most of the rest of the world, HIV is primarily transmitted through unprotected anal sex (hence largely homosexual) and sharing of needles by addicts.


You would have to cite peer reviewed medical literature before I would accept what you have said about transmission of std's through oral sex. Anything is possible, that does not make it even remotely likely - remember the urban myth of getting std's from a toilet seat? That probably had some basis in fact but little more than that.

Your opinions regarding public health issues are yours to have, that is your right. However, you cannot have your own facts and, again, cite the peer reviewed studies and I would reconsider the validity of what I have read.

I don't know what your issue is with what I said but your posting is a complete warp of my post and I assume that you have some private agenda. I find your post insulting and personal but so what.

I cited a well known public health fact, the low incidence of HIV transmission that results from heterosexual sex, and used it as an example, if you will, of misunderstanding causing fear. I did not, and would not, suggest that unmarried people engage in unprotected sex. Heterosexual transmission is thought to be more common in Africa because of the prevalence of rape, or at least that is what the public health authorities think. In most of the rest of the world, HIV is primarily transmitted through unprotected anal sex (hence largely homosexual) and sharing of needles by addicts.


You would have to cite peer reviewed medical literature before I would accept what you have said about transmission of std's through oral sex. Anything is possible, that does not make it even remotely likely - remember the urban myth of getting std's from a toilet seat? That probably had some basis in fact but little more than that.

Your opinions regarding public health issues are yours to have, that is your right. However, you cannot have your own facts and, again, cite the peer reviewed studies and I would reconsider the validity of what I have read.

I don't know what your issue is with what I said but your posting is a complete warp of my post and I assume that you have some private agenda. I find your post insulting and personal but so what. Originally Posted by bigbirddog

I didn't mean to "warp" your post, and I don't have a private agenda other than my finding that your post was inaccurate and as I mentioned, your postulate that an STD cannot be transmitted outside of the presence of a lesion (in the context written) is an asinine statement. It is "personal" only in that you made the statement (you wrote it). I do hope that every time someone calls you out for something you do or say (as a moderator) that you won't be playing the "Oh, he/she must have an agenda/motive and is making it personal" card . . . I don't, and it isn't. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Peer reviewed medical literature citation(s) over something that is accepted medical fact and taught in high school health class - okay, I'll fire up Google when I get a chance to prove to you that bacterium STD's such as chlamydia and gonorrhea, etc. may be transmitted by unprotected oral sex outside of the presence of a lesion(s) - or you could just concede that many bacterial STD's are spread in the absence of a lesion (for instance, chlamydia can be passed from an infected mother to her baby during vaginal childbirth and the child has no lesion).

By the way, I agree that the incidence of heterosexual transmission of HIV via oral sex is infinitesimal (which was a point I had made in a previous thread - with citation[s]).

- Jackie

The best known source for anytype of infection/disease/std's is the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/


http://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/default.htm - no need to rewrite what they're saying. But, you can get gonorrhea via oral. Please click on the view fact sheet link.

http://www.sfcityclinic.org/drk/oralsex10.asp - the first paragraph covers the receiving gonorrhea via giving oral sex.

Here's another link telling you of what std's you can get via oral sex: http://www.sexetc.org/faq/std/1009

The best known source for anytype of infection/disease/std's is the CDC [...] Originally Posted by MsElena

Which I cited as a link in my first post, but apparently the CDC doesn't have established "peer reviewed medical literature" for bigbirddog to find acceptable.

I'm done with this thread . . . bigbirddog, I don't know why you feel that your being called out for making an inaccurate statement is personal, or that I have an agenda. As I said, it is personal only in that you were the author of the inaccuracy. But hey, way to play the card.

Frankly, "peer reviewed medical literature" (as a citation) aside, you have every right to be as ignorant as you want to be . . . the FACT is that many STD's (including HIV) can be transmitted via unprotected oral sex. I agree that HIV transmission would in most EVERY instance require the presence of a lesion (and, as I mentioned, even in the presence of a lesion the incidence of transmission would be infinitesimally low). Bacterial STD's require no lesion. I'm not going to dig for citations when both my initial one and MsElena's will suffice. The information is readily available from the CDC (whom I am going to go out on a limb and guess that they base their facts on "peer reviewed medical literature").

As for the comment "heterosexual sex is not even a prominant [sic] cause of HIV except in Africa" - well, you've explained the comment and the context - and, we do not disagree!

You have stated "I did not, and would not, suggest that unmarried people engage in unprotected sex" and I do apologize if I took your comment out of context (which I admitted in my second post in this thread - that I did not see your previous post in the thread from which I quoted until it was pointed out by St. C. - if I had, I may have reacted differently regarding your possibly advocating unprotected intercourse outside of Africa - but I would have still had issue with your second sentence).

- Jackie

Oh didn't see that. LOL

Well, I put 3 links up. If that isn't convincing enough, I don't know what to say. Myself, I listen to the CDC and do my own research, but everything always comes back to the CDC in the end.

Damn thread is tl;dr for most people anyway - LOL

Kisses,

- Jackie

....................... Anything is possible, that does not make it even remotely likely - remember the urban myth of getting std's from a toilet seat? That probably had some basis in fact but little more than that.......................... ..... Originally Posted by bigbirddog

This is a quote from the other thread:

"IMHO, there were a lot of inaccuracies in that discussion. In fact, heterosexual sex is not even a prominant cause of HIV except in Africa. You can't give a lady any form of std orally unless she has mouth lesions. Stomach acids kill the bugs."

Please, even high school biology class would tell us that the above are simply simple statements. Let us ignore any search that involves Wikipedia for anything.

1. You can get a lot of different sickness from toilet seats. Now define what you classify as an "std", some defined by CDC you can get from toilet seats, and some you can not get from an exposed surface. It depends on what sickness you are talking about; contagious disease can be transmitted in many ways. The real question is: is your partner clean, have they bathed recently? Do they have any open sores? As for me I like things clean. For example, do you classify crabs and mites (scabies) as a STD? Many doctors would classify then as STDs because they are transmitted that way most of the time. (Syphilis and certain dermal infections can also be transmitted in ways other than contact of the pubic regions, but that is the usual means of infection.) Lice (crabs) have evolved into both head lice and pubic lice and the pubic lice are usually transmitted by sexual contact (with or without a condom) by contact between the pubic hair. Scabies is a parasite that I would not wish on anyone. I referred to it as a mite in another thread. I started to counter Jackie's response as a new thread, but then again - it just isn't worth the time. Just don't use Wikipedia, and think you have the whole story. (By the way DDT was was no longer registered by the EPA as a pesticide approved for commercial application by a registered pesticide applicator; if it is not registered, you are mot permitted to use it commercially unless you have a special permission for research work on environmental applications. The punishment for a violation can range from a hand slap to 5 years in prison and/or a $20,000 fine. Fines for selling an unregistered pesticide can run much higher, the fine for not submitting the proper production reports late is $5,000. The phrase"banned by the EPA" is not a good phrase to use for several reasons. FDA registration of materials available for parasites is a medical area not covered by the EPA. The FDA area of prescription drugs is what I was referring to, and DDT was used for scabies which was not covered by FIFRA, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972.)
2. Stomach acids can kill some of the bugs. Some bacteria can survive a lot of conditions and temperatures; e.g. the hot springs at Yellowstone National Park. Bacteria growth is seen in wide pH changes. The breakdown of sewage is best seen by the aerobic bacteria bacillus and pseudomonas which grow best in the pH range of 7.0-7.9; that is what you must have been talking about because salmonellae is just one example of bacteria that can grow very well outside of this pH range.
3. Wow, unbelievable. You can get HIV from heterosexual unprotected sex!
4. A heathy gut is loaded with bacteria, it has been estimated that 80% of the gut discharge is bacteria. They produce bacteria to help us breakdown our food. They also provide a lot of chemistry that contribute a lot of other benefits to the body. A lot of the benefits of bacteria in the body (gut) are just being recognized including recent research on enzyme production by the bacteria flora and resistance to sickness that is developed by a healthy flora in children.

JR

JR -

I can't find a credible report of DDT being used in medicine after June, 1972, and I've looked . . . There are many people that report using a creme that they thought contained DDT, but it was a cousin of DDT, not DDT itself "proper" . .

I may occasionally cite (or link to) Wikipedia for the general consumption here for reference, however, Wikipedia is rarely my only source - and never my first choice.

Thanks for the additional information, even if it was completely off topic.

By the way, I've a connection with DDT . . I have always liked older gentlemen and fourteen years ago my first husband died of complications from a cancer that was traced to his using DDT while working for our federal government while stationed in Panama, so I do know a little bit about the subject, also.

I still stand by my statement that on this issue you may be in a bit of time warp, but if you are able to come up with a credible reference of DDT being used in a manufactured pharmaceutical in the US post June '72, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong and that you're not stuck in the late 60's (early 70's). I can't find a published study with DDT as a component of a topical ointment for mites or scabies, etc. that is newer than the late 1940's / early 1950's.

Now for many people, that wouldn't be a terrible place to be stuck . . . so it may not be all bad - LOL.

As for the rest of your post, I find it somewhat difficult to follow, but I'm floored that you basically agree with me and said so publicly. That had to hurt a little. LMAO.

- Jackie

Big B, these girls are accurate in their observations. It's pretty much accepted fact in this day and age, particularly about the oral aspects.

As an example, I doubt Magic Johnson contracted HIV from homosexual sex, but who knows. He might just be a walking Petrie dish.

I do hope that every time someone calls you out for something you do or say (as a moderator) that you won't be playing the "Oh, he/she must have an agenda/motive and is making it personal" card . . . I don't, and it isn't. Not everything is a conspiracy.



- Jackie Originally Posted by jackie@sintropolis

Then quit calling out the black choppers every time someone else has something to say. There are so many now I can't hear anything besides the beat of their frequency modulated brainwashing blades. Except of course, (and don't get mad because I'm the only one who can hear them because they only talk to me), the voices.

Then quit calling out the black choppers every time someone else has something to say. There are so many now I can't hear anything besides the beat of their frequency modulated brainwashing blades. Except of course, (and don't get mad because I'm the only one who can hear them because they only talk to me), the voices.
Originally Posted by perpetualdesign

I would have had issue with the comment REGARDLESS of who said it and I certainly don't take issue with everything said on this (or any other board) "every time someone else has something to say". I know you'd probably be happier if we were all seen but not heard from . . .

This statement ("You can't give a lady any form of std orally unless she has mouth lesions. Stomach acids kill the bugs.") is patently false, misleading, dangerous and frankly, it is ignorance like this that causes people to suffer.

I would have normally made a comment about it in the thread in which it appeared when I read it and let it go at that, after all, the POINT of the board is for polite discourse - and I seriously doubt it would be "such" an issue except for two points. A) I can't post in the thread in which it appears, so in order for me to discuss the comment, I had to begin a new thread in another section. And, B) the comment was made by a moderator, who like it or not, is held to a slightly higher standard than a regular member when posting.

I did take some of the comment out of the context that was apparently intended (and I admitted that and I apologized for it) - but my point is valid.

Good luck with the voices. BTW.

You know, frankly, I am really beginning to start to not give a shit. I've gotten email after email about "taking it easy on the new mod" and "he simply misspoke". No, he didn't. He honestly believes what he wrote. He stepped in it and was called out for it. There are a good handful of gentlemen that have also messaged and said that they agree that it was a terribly imprudent comment and that he should have been called out for it - but that they don't want to agree with my publicly because they fear incurring the "wrath" or "displeasure" of the new moderator(s).

Isn't it wonderful that so many here are in fear and don't speak what is on their mind . . . Oh, the terror of repercussion . . .

Darwin will win out in the end - for all I care a mod can delete the entire fucking thread. As the OP I am making the request. No one seems to give a shit about the inaccuracy of or the danger of such a comment as that which is at issue.

- Jackie

Nope. The voices told me karma ate Darwin's lunch.