Question For the Gay Guys

[ericbear]

Originally posted by Javierdude22@Jun 3 2004, 02:34 AM

So basically, hypothetically speaking, if you are in a strictly monogamous relationship with a guy, unprotected sex cannot result in STD's right?

Exactly. However, in the case of HIV, it takes a certain amount of time for the disease to incubate to a level where it is certain to be detected by the test. Safe sex should be practiced until a second "clean" test is achieved after waiting. Years ago, that was about 6 months, as long as some relationships last! Today, with modern, more sensitive tests, the time is shorter. Discuss this with your doctor, and practice safe sex until you both test clean after the waiting period.

Also, be sure you really trust that your partner is monogamous. It only takes one little slip, and both of you could become infected!

 

[13788]

BRMSTN69: The best thing to remember is that when you have sex with someone your having sex with everyone they have been with and everyone they have been with and everyone; you get the point





CAPTIAN CONDOM SAY'S WRAP THAT RASCAL!!!!

P.S.This applies to male, female, gay, str8,or bi if you have been with one you've been with them all.

 

[jonb]

Can STDs spring up from the uninfected? Well, does water magically produce fish or meat magically produce maggots?

In the case of HIV, it takes a while before it can be detected via tests.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Jun 3 2004, 01:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DoubleMeatWhopper @ Jun 3 2004, 01:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Javierdude22@Jun 2 2004, 07:29 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-DoubleMeatWhopper

@Jun 2 2004, 03:10 AM
When I&#39;ve engaged in anal sex, I have always used a condom.

Dude, not even when you were in a relationship? No problem there right?

Yes, Javier, even when I was involved in a serious relationship. [/b][/quote]
Okay, I&#39;m going to be completely honest here ... I guess I&#39;ve been holding back. My idea of fidelity might not coincide with the definition accepted by others. When Dirk and I were together, we did engage in a few ménages-à-trois. Our rule was "you don&#39;t have sex with one or the other, but with both of us." In a situation like that, it would be crazy not to use condoms.

 

[HotBoiLA]

I think it&#39;s really important to stress here that, while oral sex is very very low risk for HIV, chlamydia, gonohhrea, herpes can all be gotten from either giving OR RECEIVING oral sex. Yes, that&#39;s right...if you get a blowjob from someone with chlamydia they can infect you with it. And people carrying these STDs often don&#39;t know they have them and are asymptomatic.

Just a word to the wise...

 

[madame_zora]

I actually think this is an area where the gay community is doing a better job of getting the word out than with str8 ppl. I am amazed to this day that people meeting for casual sex seem honestly offended by the suggestion of condom use&#33; Like there would even be a remote possibility I would go "bareback" with a regular partner. Look folks, it&#39;s this serious- even in a committed realtionship, you would have to wait a year, both get tested, and be willing to bet with your life that your partner is 100% monogamous (as well as yourself). I know there are couples who share this kind of intimacy, but far fewer than we are led to believe by the media, and far fewer than ppl in relationships would care to admit, even to themselves. As for me, I&#39;ll happily err on the side of caution. I really don&#39;t want even the curable stds, and no sex on earth is worth dying for. Lets&#39; all just grow up and face reality as it stands, and encourage all the ppl we love to do the same. Easily as important as not letting friends drive drunk&#33;

 

[13788]

gigantikok:

Originally posted by ericbear+Jun 2 2004, 10:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ericbear &#064; Jun 2 2004, 10:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-dancinfool@Jun 2 2004, 01:04 PM

STDs and AIDS are not a "gay issue", they are human issues.

This is indeed true. Many straight people seem to regard the gay and straight communities as isolated. In fact, from my own experiences, there is a lot more sexual contact between the groups than most straight people are willing to admit. In rare cases, this is open-- I&#39;ve let men blow me while their wives watched. But most bisexual men are very closeted, and have a lot to loose, like their beloved children, if they come out. Consequently, it is very hard for a man to tell his wife, who is on the pill, that he needs to use a condom, becuse he&#39;s been taking it up the ass while away on business. Similarly, this man may be very reluctant to even get an HIV test, let his wife find out and ask why he is concerned about this. So, if he ever does get infected, chances are the wife will as well.

As such, given enough time, the health issues in gay circles are very much relevant to those in straight mainstream. In a report written in 2000 (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/At-a-Glance.pdf ; you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader), the CDC found that 42% of new HIV infections were due to male-male transmission, while 33% were from heterosexual intercourse (the remainder came from IV drug use). However, the 42% from man-man sex includes bisexual men, who believe they contracted the disease from another man. When this is considered, it is seen that the disease if far from being a gay issue anymore, with about as many new sexually transmitted cases occuring in the straight community as they gay. (However, because there are far fewer gay people, the rate of incidence is still much higher in the gay community.)[/b][/quote]
Supposedly AIDS is contracted through blood and nothing more. The only time blood is exposed during any kind of intercourse is through anal sex (with exceptions). Microscopic tears in the lining of the anus expose the AIDS virus. However, when you consider that vaginal sex between a man and a woman very rarely involves open cuts or microscopic tears in the flesh, it is much harder to contract the disease this way. Of course, there are still ways to contract the disease through vaginal intercourse, as well as through anal sex between a man and a woman.

So yes and no. No, AIDS is not only a gay disease (considering needles and other circumstances), but yes, a majority of gay men do contract the disease due to their sexual preferences and the way the disease is contracted.

 

[13788]

BRMSTN69: BULLSHIT&#33;&#33;&#33; Aids and HIV are not only transmitted through blood but also seamen and the mucus membranes(you know the glands that make a women all wet and ready and the ones that naturally lube your ass when you shit or get fucked)any man that has unprotected sex with an infected women has the same chances as an ass-pirate.The idea that blood has to be involved is ignorant,it&#39;s belifes like that that have allowed HIV to gain a stronger foothold in the hetro community while it&#39;s been on the decline in gays. Do yourself a favor and get educated.

 

[jonb]

Well, the good news is, the odds of a male getting AIDS from coitus are fairly low, as are the odds of a female getting AIDS from coitus with a NOT MSM male.

Oh, and Gigz, you&#39;re technically incorrect. HIV&#39;s also spread via semen. And there is the possiblity of blood contact during fellatio or coitus: Gingivitis and menstruation respectively present problems. As do these men who act like they&#39;re angry during sex: The locker room expression "fuck her raw" is quite accurate to describe a quick way to get HIV. Oh, and if straight couples engage in pedication, they have even more likelihood of tearing: A woman&#39;s anus is needless to say smaller.

I&#39;ve never heard of HIV being transferred via mucous membranes, though. If it did, you could get it via kissing. However, HIV is also spread via breast milk, which is why you hear of infants with HIV. (Vertical transmission.)

 

[13788]

BRMSTN69: The reason you don&#39;t get the the viris from kissing is because of an enzime in saliva that kills the viris. but I do wonder why science hasn&#39;t found a way to use this enzime for a vaccine.

 

[13788]

gigantikok:

Originally posted by BRMSTN69@Jun 6 2004, 06:40 AM
The reason you don&#39;t get the the viris from kissing is because of an enzime in saliva that kills the viris. but I do wonder why science hasn&#39;t found a way to use this enzime for a vaccine.

No, it cannot be spread through membranes, and no, the percentage of women infected by the virus are lower then men. Sure, as jonb said, there is always a chance you can create microscopic tears in the vagina with really rough sex (or fellatio) and then transmit the disease with infected semen, but it is much more likely to happen during anal sex. I forgot that semen carries the virus. That is why the disease is in abundance in the gay community, but BECAUSE women also participate in anal sex as well as rough sex and can use infected needles, they get infected too.

An enzyme in the saliva that kills the AIDS virus? Are you dense? Don&#39;t you think over the last 20 years a cure could be found using human saliva? Where are you getting your "facts" from... The National Enquirer?

 

[13788]

BRMSTN69: see questions for gay men.

 

[13788]

BRMSTN69: sorry ,forgot I was already in that forum ,but I belive it was mentioned here before . As for where I get my info , it&#39;s from working with an ambulance company, the coroners office, aids resourse groupes and hospice care

 

[ericbear]

Originally posted by BRMSTN69@Jun 5 2004, 11:40 PM
The reason you don&#39;t get the the viris from kissing is because of an enzime in saliva that kills the viris. but I do wonder why science hasn&#39;t found a way to use this enzime for a vaccine.

For the same reason that Chlorox is not useful as a vaccine, despite that it is highly effective at destroying the virus on surfaces and "toys." (Although in the deep dark desperate days of the early 1980&#39;s, there were guys injecting themselves with dilute Chlorox. I&#39;m not sure which killed them quicker.) The ability to destroy an isolated virus (i.e. virus suspended in siliva or other fluid, or on a surface) has nothing to do with inhibiting its reproduction once it has already entered a cell.

A true vaccine is a substance which itself is not toxic to the virus, but sensitizes the body&#39;s immune system so that it will effectively destroy the virus. The problem with HIV is that it interacts differtently with the body&#39;s immune system than most viruses. Because it invades the imune cells themselves, the efforts of the immune system to attack HIV actually results in replication, not destruction, of the virus. Becaue of this, a vaccine in the usual sense appears very tricky to develop. Most current anti-HIV drugs work by interfering with the reproduction cycle of the HIV at various stages. But as such, they also have some impact on normal celluar reproduction, and are therefore somewhat toxic. Further, because the HIV virus remains rooted in some very long-lived cells of the immune system, none of these therapies represent a cure, but rather a life-long drug maintenance program. But, due to the somewhat toxic nature of the drugs, this is not without its consequences.

The Mayo Clinic has a very nice plain-language discussion of HIV and AIDS, which can be read at http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=DS00005 . Be sure to click "next section" at the bottom of each page to get the whole presentation.

 

[jonb]

Some diseases, like chlamydia and syphilis, hang around the mucous membranes, hence the dental dam, but HIV isn&#39;t one of them.

About Clorox: Someone asked Cecil Adams a similar question about chlorine as an AIDS cure. As of right now, an HIV vaccine&#39;s a pipe dream: It&#39;s constantly mutating, changing its antigen pattern. (It&#39;s a lot like how you need to get a new flu shot every couple years.)