Safe sex

[Nudistpig]

Yeah the chances are much lower than bareback anal sex. Don’t brush your teeth right before as that can cause micro abrasions. As long as you have no open sores in your mouth you should be fine. Though keep that in mind: SHOULD be fine. There’s always a chance.

Though, anecdotally, I used to go to bath houses fairly frequently and I still go to sex parties now and then, and I’ve never used a condom for oral (either giving or receiving) and I’ve never caught an STD from it. Knock on wood.

So my doctor happens to be one of the principle North American researchers and clinicians in HIV. The info about teeth and brushing is painfully out of date. Some few agencies still say this but in 30 years there has not been one confirmed case of transmission via this route. Not one. HIV is big. It needs more than microabraisions to enter the bloodstream and then it must be present in a much larger quantity than is present in most poz people's semen now.

The risk of dying in a car accident on the way is higher, the risk of getting hit by lightning is higher, the risk of a heart attack during is higher, and even when we add known cases of oral transmission there are a handful. Most involve dentistry or oral surgery. So the current guidelines around oral say 'hypothetical' risk. This is essentially zero.

Fear of HIV and STIs along with stigma DRIVES the epidemic forward. The more we continue to share hypothetical hyperbolic old out of date or in some cases false info about HIV risk the longer it will take us to stop this because this only ads to the fear.

 

[malakos]

Fear of HIV and STIs along with stigma DRIVES the epidemic forward. The more we continue to share hypothetical hyperbolic old out of date or in some cases false info about HIV risk the longer it will take us to stop this because this only ads to the fear.

Frankly I'm more actively concerned about certain STIs other than HIV. The latter is fairly easy to protect one's self against if one is informed and takes responsibility for one's safety. Some other STIs are easier to pick up and so do not have such clearcut safety protocols.

 

[Nudistpig]

I hear your concern although with respect to loss of life public perception and what is driving bad choices around prevention by far and away is HIV. And people are dying because of it still. My friends in some cases.

Herpes 1 and 2 trade places. Lots of herpes. It's not a real threat in most cases and easy to get. Syphilis is prevented by condom use. Chlamydia too. Gonorrhea no. It can be present in the mouth and throat. All these but herpes are treated with antibiotics with effectiveness.

My experience in preventive care is that we have tried to fix behavior with a prophylaxis. It covers up. It doesn't solve. More education around sexual health. More support for training outreach who are not sex shaming or propagating myths. Events that uphold community values and promote sexual health trough sexual awareness.

 

[malakos]

I hear your concern although with respect to loss of life public perception and what is driving bad choices around prevention by far and away is HIV. And people are dying because of it still. My friends in some cases.

In terms of potentialities and social impact there is that difference. I just mean on an individual level, having a basic knowledge of each pathogen and how it propagates, HIV seems a lot easier to reliably avoid than say herpes or syphilis.

Herpes 1 and 2 trade places. Lots of herpes. It's not a real threat in most cases and easy to get. Syphilis is prevented by condom use. Chlamydia too. Gonorrhea no.

I've done quite a bit of research on herpes; its prevalence is staggering; this of course is due to the multiplicity of vectors and how mere skin contact, in some cases even without present symptoms, can be opportunity for its transmission.

Recently did a chunk of research on syphilis due to potential exposure. Thankfully it sounds like syphilis transmission is somewhat more symptom dependent than herpes.

All these but herpes are treated with antibiotics with effectiveness.

Yes... I take having to take antibiotics more seriously than most seem to. I am aware of the damage they can do to the GI biome and the potential long-term impacts of this and take this seriously.

My experience in preventive care is that we have tried to fix behavior with a prophylaxis. It covers up. It doesn't solve. More education around sexual health...

Events that uphold community values and promote sexual health trough sexual awareness.

I'm for that. However...

More support for training outreach who are not sex shaming or propagating myths.

I find the "no sex shaming" mantra problematic. I don't think it has a natural association with sexual health advocacy and often actually contradicts an ethic of taking responsible for sexual safety. Usually this ideology is linked to libertine attitudes about choice. IMO, entirely vacating the whole concept of ought has shot sexual health in the foot. Conceiving of health as a good and something we are meant to pursue provides a cultural foundation and orientation for motivating the populous to take responsibility for themselves. The "no sex shaming" crowd has been so repelled by sexual moralizing that they by and large threw out the whole notion of sexual virtue/skill (because who has the right to judge one sexual approach as "better" or more sound than another? ); the baby with the bathwater. I have seen too many cases now of "no sex shaming" being used to promote the most ridiculously irresponsible and dissolute of behaviors (never mind the fact of how this tactic is being used by various "social justice" and "civil rights" activist groups to gradually shift downward society's sense of particularly basic elements of sexual morality). And the truth is that sexual health advocates who refuse ought have no place to tell them they are doing something wrong.

 

[LICNYCgay]

So my doctor happens to be one of the principle North American researchers and clinicians in HIV. The info about teeth and brushing is painfully out of date. Some few agencies still say this but in 30 years there has not been one confirmed case of transmission via this route. Not one. HIV is big. It needs more than microabraisions to enter the bloodstream and then it must be present in a much larger quantity than is present in most poz people's semen now.

The risk of dying in a car accident on the way is higher, the risk of getting hit by lightning is higher, the risk of a heart attack during is higher, and even when we add known cases of oral transmission there are a handful. Most involve dentistry or oral surgery. So the current guidelines around oral say 'hypothetical' risk. This is essentially zero.

Fear of HIV and STIs along with stigma DRIVES the epidemic forward. The more we continue to share hypothetical hyperbolic old out of date or in some cases false info about HIV risk the longer it will take us to stop this because this only ads to the fear.

Thanks for the update.

 

[Nudistpig]

In terms of potentialities and social impact there is that difference. I just mean on an individual level, having a basic knowledge of each pathogen and how it propagates, HIV seems a lot easier to reliably avoid than say herpes or syphilis.



I've done quite a bit of research on herpes; its prevalence is staggering; this of course is due to the multiplicity of vectors and how mere skin contact, in some cases even without present symptoms, can be opportunity for its transmission.

Recently did a chunk of research on syphilis due to potential exposure. Thankfully it sounds like syphilis transmission is somewhat more symptom dependent than herpes.



Yes... I take having to take antibiotics more seriously than most seem to. I am aware of the damage they can do to the GI biome and the potential long-term impacts of this and take this seriously.



I'm for that. However...



I find the "no sex shaming" mantra problematic. I don't think it has a natural association with sexual health advocacy and often actually contradicts an ethic of taking responsible for sexual safety. Usually this ideology is linked to libertine attitudes about choice. IMO, entirely vacating the whole concept of ought has shot sexual health in the foot. Conceiving of health as a good and something we are meant to pursue provides a cultural foundation and orientation for motivating the populous to take responsibility for themselves. The "no sex shaming" crowd has been so repelled by sexual moralizing that they by and large threw out the whole notion of sexual virtue/skill (because who has the right to judge one sexual approach as "better" or more sound than another? ); the baby with the bathwater. I have seen too many cases now of "no sex shaming" being used to promote the most ridiculously irresponsible and dissolute of behaviors (never mind the fact of how this tactic is being used by various "social justice" and "civil rights" activist groups to gradually shift downward society's sense of particularly basic elements of sexual morality). And the truth is that sexual health advocates who refuse ought have no place to tell them they are doing something wrong.

With respect to the epidemiology of STI's, libertine attitudes are not the problem. I concur that sexual health is far more than simply saying 'all choices are equally good' (you will note my earlier comments in this thread point quite directly at the moral question), and that in some quarters the messaging has become fairly dissolute and devoid of substance, but the overwhelming problem is still shame and stigma.

People who are affirmed in their sexual choices and who are supported by a strong sense of self worth make better choices overall with respect to sexual health. The research is quite clear. Shame simply isn't healthy. In order to get people to care about something they do, they must first feel that it is of value and that it is a good, both individually and socially.

I am less concerned with STI transmission and more concerned with the choices that lead people to the behaviors in the first place. Some transmission is inevitable that's just the way illness works. But much is preventable. We know what the social determinants of health are, we know which acts are inherently more risky and we also know what psychological, emotional and physical conditions create poor decision making. I'm going to suggest that heaping the bulk of the critique on sexual health advocates is unfair and misplaced. Bars, nightclubs, private clubs, party hosts, promoters and pornographers have a responsibility to provide spaces for exploration and growth. They consistently fail to do so because in most cases, profit is the only concern.

 

[jasalex]

A male bonding party, lol, I call it a gay orgy!
You should always feel comfortable about using protection. If the guy won't go to the next guy who will. Unless, there aren't that many willing guys who won't play safe!