Who knows, he might be an emissary from another star system, and we don't want to make enemies until we know the full extent of their powers. Thank you.
do you think that the person PERFORMING the oral sex,
is at greater risk of RECEIVING an STD
from (1) cunnilingus (no obvious menstruation) or (2) fellatio (without cumming)
When you put on underwear (assuming you put on underwear) do you keep the label at the front or the back?
Yellow on the front, brown on the back I am sure is the system he uses. lol
The only thing that comes out of you is plain and simple BullS--T
Who knows, he might be an emissary from another star system, and we don't want to make enemies until we know the full extent of their powers. Thank you.
most likely the person who is exposing the most mucous membrane surface. Which would be the person performing fellatio (penis can hit back of throat) and the person receiving cunnilingus. Increasing the odds for either oral sex performer would be brushing one's teeth less than an hour or so before performing, or serious gingivitis or other gum disease/weakness, as well as any other kind of abrasion in the mouth, on the tongue, or on the gums.
Then I just reread your message- sorry! Answered the wrong question. I would say the person performing fellatio is more at risk for the reasons in my answer above. But of course it depends on the STI: herpes is just as likely to affect either party equally...
-- Modified on 2/9/2015 12:33:05 AM
from web browsing is that you are correct that giving fellatio is riskier than giving cunnilingus. To me that is counterintuitive, but it seems to be what it is.
Researching this is frustrating because most sources conflate various scenarios, probably because hard statistics are hard to come by. (No puns intended.) Here is an interesting snippet from one discussion:
" Cunnilingus is considered a low-risk behavior compared with vaginal or anal intercourse, but it's not completely risk-free. "You're not likely to get exposed to gonorrhea or chlamydia, because the person is NOT NEAR THE CERVIX where these infections reside," says Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Washington in Seattle. "But the partner performing the oral sex is at risk for STDs that can be on the skin or lining of the vagina like herpes simplex virus, HPV, or syphilis." "
I had posed this question because another thread here had implied that cisgender female providers are victimized by men. I wondered if we could posit that mongers are taking on more risk than providers. It seems that at least as regards STDs that is not true; seems like providers really do take more risk. And this is all before taking into account CIM, which sources agree raises the risk of HIV transmission (albeit to a still extremely low risk level).
question the wisdom of mandatory testing in legal and licensed places. And the call for it in general when people advocate for legalization here- the mantra always seems to be "legalize and regulate", the "regulate" part usually referring to 1. mandatory testing, and 2. taxation. But if women are in general more at risk from men than the other way around- why not test the men? Because those advocating testing at the state or policy level are not really interested in the health of sex workers. They're interested in expedient political brownie points. What results is the patholigization of sex workers and a stigma that sex workers carry diseases and will infect a community if we don't quarantine and test them all. Lol!!
Worst of all, testing is seen by many as prophylactic, which gives everyone a false sense of security. The only thing a test can tell you is that you presently have nothing that is detectable by this test. It doesn't mean you don't have something: it could still be in the incubation stage. Unless you take six months off of sex period- and get tested at the beginning of the six months, after 3 months, and again after another three months, you can never really be sure with a negative.
Testing should be a personal choice (which most sex workers do regularly as personal majntenance like nails and hair), and not mandatory. When it's mandatory, there is a fine, citation, or some other punishment for not doing so. And doing so usually requires sex workers to register with the state as a card-carrying prostitute- which most women are unwilling to do. Both of those situations deter sex workers from getting involved in the state sex work regulation apparatus, so it does nothing whatsoever for public health, but costs the state some serious resources and maintains the illegal and underground status of most sex workers. In other words, "legalize and regulate" is pointless.
I like you. Thanks for the insightful post.