This thread has been way off topic and I apologize for not keeping an eye on it. The topic is HIV in BR & NOLA, not speculating on unverified information.
I think the topic & discussion relevant to the topic are important therefore I'll reopen the thread. Stay on topic or the points will fly ninja style.
- Wiley64
- 01-24-2013, 06:19 PM
- Annie Calhoun
- 01-28-2013, 05:02 PM
I disagree Mina. The risk of transmitting HIV via bbbj is so low there isnt even a valid statistic on it. In order to transfer HIV the female has to 1) have his cum/precum in her mouth, and 2) have an open sore in her mouth to receive the HIV. If there is a statistic I believe its like .01% or less Originally Posted by LovelyLolitaThat's actually not true. Check the CDC's website. The reason there's no stats on it is because it's pretty difficult to calculate, given the fact that most people do not engage exclusively in oral sex. And it's not exactly ethical to do experiments...
Even though the risk of transmitting HIV through oral sex is much lower than that of anal or vaginal sex, numerous studies have demonstrated that oral sex can result in the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)...However, by using condoms or other barriers between the mouth and genitals, individuals can reduce their risk of contracting HIV or another STD through oral sex.
--http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/oralsex.htm
Keep in mind mucous membranes are permeable to viruses, bacteria, etc., and all it takes is a very, very small wound--from chapped lips, a tiny sore from biting your cheek, or being a bit too overzealous when brushing your teeth and gums. I'm not trying to freak anyone out, I'm just saying that we all need to be careful, and it's important to be mindful about the activities we participate in and the associated risks we take.
- LovelyLolita
- 01-28-2013, 05:08 PM
Yeah, thats what I meant about the fact that you have to have some sort of open cut or wound in your mouth.
- Arverni
- 01-28-2013, 07:30 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16700731
The risk of transmission of HIV via oral sexual practices is very low. Unlike other mucosal areas of the body, the oral cavity appears to be an extremely uncommon transmission route for HIV.http://www.poz.com/archive/2008_Mar_2168.shtml
HIV has been detected in saliva, tears and urine. However, HIV in these fluids is only found in extremely low concentrations. What's more, there hasn't been a single case of HIV transmission through these fluids reported. HIV cannot be transmitted through day-to-day activities such as shaking hands, hugging or casual kissing. You cannot become infected from a toilet seat, drinking fountain, or sharing food or eating utensils with someone who is positive. You also cannot get HIV from mosquitoes.http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...ticleid=484948
Oral transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by the millions of HIV-infected individuals is a rare event, even when infected blood and exudate is present. Saliva of viremic individuals usually contains only noninfectious components of HIV indicating virus breakdown.See, the problem is that the CDC cherry-picks what studies it wishes to "cite". I haven't trusted the CDC since they endorsed the Anthrax vaccine for military service members. I mean - I never had a problem with it - the stuff makes me feel like I'm on steroids ... but I did have a friend who almost died from the vaccine.
- LovelyLolita
- 01-28-2013, 08:15 PM
HIV transmission is also highly dependent on the viral content of the infected person. I am not saying I condone this particular behavior, but it is possible for an infected person with low HIV viral content to have unprotected sex with an HIV NEG person and NOT transmit the virus. I dont know the statistics of this, but there have been studies done in Africa of couples where one is POS and the other is NEG.
Sorry for not having any direct links to this particular study, but I did read about it recently.
Thanks Arverni for all the helpful info.
On an off topic side note,...I also do not trust the FDA. Ever since they banned the use of Stevia (a natural sweetener) and condoned the use of a now well known carcinogen (Sweet N Low and other such artificial sweetners). Seems to me some company is paying off the FDA, and this is more than likely not the first time this has happened. Take every resource with a grain of salt.
Sorry for not having any direct links to this particular study, but I did read about it recently.
Thanks Arverni for all the helpful info.
On an off topic side note,...I also do not trust the FDA. Ever since they banned the use of Stevia (a natural sweetener) and condoned the use of a now well known carcinogen (Sweet N Low and other such artificial sweetners). Seems to me some company is paying off the FDA, and this is more than likely not the first time this has happened. Take every resource with a grain of salt.
- Annie Calhoun
- 01-28-2013, 10:00 PM
Well of course. HIV transmission is dependent on a lot of things. It's possible for a person with high HIV viral content to have unprotected sex with an HIV neg person and NOT transmit the virus--people do it all the time. It's just extremely risky.
I do trust the CDC in matters like this; however, I also know that just because something is "best practice" doesn't mean it's the only option. Realistically, if we all wanted to eliminate our risk of contracting HIV, we'd practice abstinence. But um, no, lol. We all make decisions and assess risks on an individual basis. But I do think it's important to consider what the scientists and other professionals in charge of monitoring, fighting, and preventing diseases in large populations have to say.
I think that most people want to believe they are completely free from risk, and they would rather turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't 100% jibe with that. I just think it's always healthy to be realistic and never fall into the trap of a false sense of security. I engage in relatively low-risk behavior, but the key word is "relatively." I'm not going to live in a sterile environment away from other humans, obviously. So, I get tested. Often. Not just for HIV. There's lots of stuff out there, and a lot of it is asymptomatic. And that's been my policy since I became sexually active, long before I began working as an escort in 2011.
Especially since, you know, we're #3.
(This is not meant as a veiled criticism of anyone here; I'm making a general statement about how people attempt to reassure themselves of their personal safety.)
I do trust the CDC in matters like this; however, I also know that just because something is "best practice" doesn't mean it's the only option. Realistically, if we all wanted to eliminate our risk of contracting HIV, we'd practice abstinence. But um, no, lol. We all make decisions and assess risks on an individual basis. But I do think it's important to consider what the scientists and other professionals in charge of monitoring, fighting, and preventing diseases in large populations have to say.
I think that most people want to believe they are completely free from risk, and they would rather turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't 100% jibe with that. I just think it's always healthy to be realistic and never fall into the trap of a false sense of security. I engage in relatively low-risk behavior, but the key word is "relatively." I'm not going to live in a sterile environment away from other humans, obviously. So, I get tested. Often. Not just for HIV. There's lots of stuff out there, and a lot of it is asymptomatic. And that's been my policy since I became sexually active, long before I began working as an escort in 2011.
Especially since, you know, we're #3.
(This is not meant as a veiled criticism of anyone here; I'm making a general statement about how people attempt to reassure themselves of their personal safety.)
HIV transmission is also highly dependent on the viral content of the infected person. I am not saying I condone this particular behavior, but it is possible for an infected person with low HIV viral content to have unprotected sex with an HIV NEG person and NOT transmit the virus. I dont know the statistics of this, but there have been studies done in Africa of couples where one is POS and the other is NEG.
Sorry for not having any direct links to this particular study, but I did read about it recently.
Thanks Arverni for all the helpful info.
On an off topic side note,...I also do not trust the FDA. Ever since they banned the use of Stevia (a natural sweetener) and condoned the use of a now well known carcinogen (Sweet N Low and other such artificial sweetners). Seems to me some company is paying off the FDA, and this is more than likely not the first time this has happened. Take every resource with a grain of salt. Originally Posted by LovelyLolita
- LovelyLolita
- 01-28-2013, 10:24 PM
None taken Annie, I really respect your views (even if we aren't always on the same page 
). You made a good point about getting tested often. This I can not agree with enough! Especially for providers. Anyone that is undertaking this type of sexual behavior, gents and ladies alike, should take it upon themselves to get tested often. Anybody that doesn't is doing a disservice to themself and the hobby as a community.
). You made a good point about getting tested often. This I can not agree with enough! Especially for providers. Anyone that is undertaking this type of sexual behavior, gents and ladies alike, should take it upon themselves to get tested often. Anybody that doesn't is doing a disservice to themself and the hobby as a community.
- sex instructor
- 02-13-2013, 10:51 PM
HIV transmission is also highly dependent on the viral content of the infected person. I am not saying I condone this particular behavior, but it is possible for an infected person with low HIV viral content to have unprotected sex with an HIV NEG person and NOT transmit the virus. I dont know the statistics of this, but there have been studies done in Africa of couples where one is POS and the other is NEG.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html
Sorry for not having any direct links to this particular study, but I did read about it recently.
Thanks Arverni for all the helpful info.
On an off topic side note,...I also do not trust the FDA. Ever since they banned the use of Stevia (a natural sweetener) and condoned the use of a now well known carcinogen (Sweet N Low and other such artificial sweetners). Seems to me some company is paying off the FDA, and this is more than likely not the first time this has happened. Take every resource with a grain of salt. Originally Posted by LovelyLolita
Actual Trial Findings PDF
There's a lot of ignorance and misinformation floating around about the subject of HIV/AIDS
