Some of the earlier (very interesting, btw) recent discussions danced all around this question but didn't quite answer it fully for me.

What are the dangers to a hobbyist from receiving unprotected oral sex from a provider?  I have a SO that I want to make sure I am not endangering (much less myself) but have this compulsion to fulfill certain desires and fantasies outside that SO relationship (long story best left untold)...

Simply put, if I am receiving unprotected oral sex (and participating in DFKing, mutual masturbation and the occasional Dining at the Y) - how much danger am I placing myself in for catching something?  And, what are the 'somethings' I would most be in danger of catching?  And, which of these activities is placing me in that danger?

Sorry for the newbie questions but I need to know urgently...
Thanks

Anything uncovered is potentially unsafe.

Probably the top 2 STD's in likliehood of getting, would be Syphilis and Gonnorhea, while enjoying BBBJ or DATY.

Statiscally speaking, take a look at the post below and ozymans unsafe practices. The question for you is ............

How lucky do you feel?

Dude... I wouldn't.  In fact I don't.  I hooked up with this lovely lady while in a business trip in NY and I found out the hard way.  While FS was covered, as was CBJ, but not DATY.  I walked away with the big G.

I know the chances are slim, but hey... it does happen.

JP

If it's that important, seek a doctor or clinic in your area who specializes in STDs... Get tested or ask for their opinion.

Since you have an SO you obviously care something about, I would not DATY, BBJ or DFK with a provider. The provider can pass on an STD to you unknowingly. She may have just contracted it an not even know it yet, even though she is tested regularly. Just my .02.

There has been many threads on the topic of STDs & the risk factors involeved with various unprotected activities.  A bit of research on the subject, not necessarily just TER thereads except to gain link access to scientific research (TER members seem to range from damn near anything's OK to NOTHING is OK in their opinions).  So do yourself a favor for your peace of mind & do some research on your own so that you aren't unduly influenced by the opinions you'll find voiced here.  I'd link a couple of such sites for you but I'm computer challenged.

The only way you can contract an STD by having oral performed on you is if you have an open wound.  So, find out if you have an open wound or other method of entry, which also includes really dry skin.  Take a baby wipe that contains alcohol & clean you privates off.  Your open wound will be very obvious.

Lizzy

PS.  Uncut men have a 50% more chance of contracting an STD than cut gentlemen.



-- Modified on 4/30/2003 5:09:47 AM

I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation, but why isn't the opening at the end of the organ vulnerable, but an open "wound" is?  I haven't tried it, but I think a baby wipe at the opening hurts like hell.

Also, by cut do you mean circumcised?

Inquiring minds want to know (:

Sources appreciated.

Yes, the opening of the penis is vulnerable, although not as much as a gash on the side.  Go ahead & try the baby wipe on the tip.  I'm guessing it does not hurt at all.  Yes, I should have said circumcised.

I got the tip on the baby wipe from the Chicken Ranch in Nevada.  Most girls will wipe the penis down to find cuts.  The circumcised % I got from a program on PBS about 8  months ago.  They were trying to find a pattern of AIDS cases in Africa.  They found that most men who had AIDS in Africa were uncircumcised.

They also did an experiment with newly detached foreskin & tainted blood to prove that uncircumcised men had a higher likelihood of contracting AIDS.

Lizzy

You said:
"The only way you can contract an STD by having oral performed on you is if you have an open wound."

It's amazing, you know so little about your profession. And the cut vs. uncut, do you have any theories on that?

You said I was wrong, but you never told me why.  Please explain.

Lizzy

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2710201.html

http://www.familysaurus.com/message_boards/Circumcision5/_circ5/00000004.htm

But I do have some links.

About being uncut...
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/aids/1993/uncut.men.higher.risk-ECGM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11221132&dopt=Abstract

To be fair, I also found plenty of links stating the opposite. I really think the jury is still out on this one overall. For the record, I don't mind gents who are uncut, but I definitely prefer cut for aesthetic reasons. I saw studies that said for one particular STD the risk was higher, for another lower, for urethritis higher, for this lower... so who knows, IMO?

Now from the CDC, which says essentially that if I have HIV in my mouth and my mouth is BLEEDING, mind you, I could potentially get blood shoved down your urethra. Seems awfully unlikely, but what is more likely is that you will have a small cut or tear on your penis.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq20.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq19.htm

Also bear in mind that the CDC is not going to say definitively that HIV cannot be transmitted via saliva, they say there is a VERY LOW CHANCE. That's their way of being on the safe side. Also I will add that I think most of the dangerous STD's follow the pattern of HIV. Frankly my main concerns are NOT ghonnorhea and chlamydia so I rarely check stats on them. I get checked frequently enough to pick those up if they are present and they are so easily fixed that they truly aren't my big worry. HIV, Hepatitis in all it's forms, warts, and herpes are my big worries.

Please don't insult someone's knowledge without the stats, links, quotes to back it up. It's hard enough to get info out without arguing about it. If you have reason to believe differently, say what the reason is, don't just make arbitrary statements like that.

Sincerely,
Nicole

It might have to do with the way the urethra is designed... ie: so that urine comes OUT, nothing goes IN. (I'll grant you, some gents DO shove things up there. Obviously that would entail higher risk levels! Anyone seen that MPG of the batteries??? YIKES)  Anyways... I'm having a hard time explaining it but I don't think it would be easy to get any real amount of someone else's body fluid up your urethra. Which falls right in line with why in unprotected sex, it's much easier for the receiver to get a disease than for the giver.

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/infograms/hiv_transmission_0302.htm

This link talks about higher risk with an "exposed" urethra and I'm trying to figure out what that means... but suffice to say, IMO, your urethra if normal is NOT exposed and is much more protected. I'm going to have to ask a doctor about this because I couldn't find a link.

Hugs*
Nicole

I am not a specialist and I do not know from experience but if you look at the CDC site, for instance for herpes, they never mention that you need to have a bleeding wound to catch herpes during uncovered oral (see link below). They say you can get it even if the partner does not have any symptom.

I would be interested in knowing where you got your information from because it's something I've always wondered about, whether they are exagerating.

To be absolutely honest with you I'm tired of posting links to credible sources. And I wasn't insulting anyones knowledge, it was the lack of knowledge that I was questioning.

Do a search for my posts dating back about 60 days and you will find all the links you need that support any statements I make. And as far as arbitrary statements go, that is what I was asking Lizzy about.

The only way you can contract an STD by having oral performed on you is if you have an OPEN WOUND? You can't be serious. Let me send over someone with a few herpes sores to perform daty on your wound-free "privates" and see what happens.

Genitals, in particular vaginas, are mucous membranes similar to the mouth, very porous and soft. Circumcised men's skin is a little more keratinized, uncirc'ed men a little softer so it's possible theoretically it makes sense they might be a little more likely to get STDs IF they are exposed to them. Then again, the dangers of being an uncirc'ed man don't hold a candle to the dangers of being a WOMAN. Women get ten times as many bladder infections, are plagued with breast ovarian, cervical and vaginal cancer while men only suffer from testicular cancer and VERY, VERY rarely from penile cancer. In fact, men (circed or uncirced) are more likely to get breast cancer than penile cancer!

Also women are much more likely to get STDs and HIV because they are the receptive partner (ie: they are the ones getting body fluids spurted inside of them instead of being the spurter). Yet I feel ok with being a woman, I don't need a piece sliced off my genitals for either aesthetic reasons or health reasons. So why does a man?

Thanks for your ONE study on HIV and circumcision which you offered as "proof", however it was based in subsaharan Africa using promiscuous Kenyan truck drivers with a sample size of 95. Not too convincing and it hardly relates to what things are like the in the U.S. There are many cultural factors that come into play here than affect the HIV rate in Africa as well. If we're playing dueling links, why don't you take a look at this page, there are TWENTY studies in peer-reviewed medical journals that prove the opposite of what you just linked:

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#studies


-- Modified on 4/30/2003 8:40:31 PM

Rates on cut versus uncut have a LOT to do with cleanliness habits.  In some third-world countries they just plain don't wash much.  In Europe, Japan, and other first-world countries that don't circumcise (which means everywhere but the USA and Australia), guys wash every day plus they usually clean up right after sex.  It's that simple.

Keep it clean and you don't have to worry about the disease festering. Not that hard to figure out really.

Now if someone could figure out that the hole in the end of a penis is NOT hermetically sealed and WILL allow microscopic germs to flow in BOTH directions without the aid of a wound on said penis, we would really be making some headway here.

The original post asked, "What are the dangers to a hobbyist from receiving unprotected oral sex from a provider".  I was referring to men receiving oral from woman & not the reverse.

Lizzy

I would add chlamydia to that list -- probably more likely than syphilis.