Possiblity of contracting STD from oral sex?

[Danny23]

Two days ago I received oral sex from a sex worker. What are the possibilities for catching an STD? She had no visible lesion or anything on her mouth. Any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks

[Roxysbayou]

The risk for HIV is very minimal. The risk is actually greater for her than for you, because of ejaculates entering her mouth.

However there is a risk for STDs such a Syphilis, Herpes, and other bacterial infections. With syphilis and herpes you would have had to come into contact with an open sore, with bacterial...the mouth is full of bacteria so these are much more common.

I would follow up with a doctor just in case. It's better to be safe than sorry.


Roxy

[ciscosv]

I would assume that sex workers have had more sex partners in a busy day than most casual dating singles in a year thus increasing their chance of harboring STD's. Don't forget about the condoms what so ever. Did you ask her to open her mouth for a visual inspection before she proceeded to give you a bj? It's not safe in a safe.

[PaulKing]

Almost zero. The enzimes in siliva are very powerful and breakdown almost everything. I have yet to see one case of ANY std from oral sex. Despite the hype sex is really quite safe. This book is I think the best reference yet written on heterosexual risk and well worth checking out.

Best wishes,

Paul

_______________

Author Michael Fumento, in his book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, offers substantial evidence that white, middle-class, non IV drugabuser heterosexuals are in less danger of contracting AIDS thru non-anal,
sexual intercourse than they are of dying from shark attacks, being hit by lightning, or accidentally drowning in the bathtub. The book is very well referenced and documented.

The book was reviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Assn as "the best single source available to enable heterosexual persons to assess their personal risk."

http://www.fumento.com/pozaids.html

[Nymph an' Satyr]

My God how I do worry about shark attacks though!

Wear a raincoat next time dude. Do yourself and the woman a favor

[PaulKing]

"Wear a raincoat next time dude. Do yourself and the woman a favor'

I fail to see the wisdom of that advice. Condoms have now been proven by study after study after study to be NO protection but do present a real LIDS and cancer risk.

If you really mean't 'a raincoat' ignore my response. I too like the Morton Salt Girl.

Best wishes,

Paul

______


BRAND NUMBER TESTED NUMBER LEAKED AS A PERCENTAGE

Contracept Plus 100 100% (EVERY ONE FAILED)

Trojan Naturalube Ribbed 92 22.8% (NEARLY ONE IN FOUR)

Tahiti 78 10.3% (OVER ONE IN 10)

VIRAL LEAKAGE THROUGH SELECTED BRANDS OF CONDOMS

Bruce Voeller, Ph.D, Jerry Nelson, Ph.D., Craig Day, M.S.


...and that is condoms used correctly and in tip top condition. In reality few condoms meet these critera.

[bbcpl4cpl]

Danny, I would say that the risks are fairly minimal in a normal situation but coupled with the fact that this is a sex worker the risk does increase, in my opinion.

I think if the situation ever occurs again and you are liable to worry about such things then you should wear a condom. There are so many delicious kinds out there, so I've heard.

But in the meantime, do get checked out at the dr's if you are seriously worried.

Toodles,

Tigress, formerly J (the lady of the couple known as J & M)

[Flori_DAMAN]

Originally posted by Nymph an' Satyr
My God how I do worry about shark attacks though!

Wear a raincoat next time dude. Do yourself and the woman a favor

We have had 6 shark attacks near the beaches I swim at recently. It is scary to me. No one has been killed and people continue to flock to the beach though. Life is generally a risk. When swimming you really can't do much cept not wear flashy stuff, and watch out for bait fish, make sure a life guard is up there....but when it comes to STD's, rubbers work, even if not all the time. I am dumfounded that people still think they don't work and manipulate statistics to substiantiate that basic fact.

Using a very scientific study I filled one up with water and really looked close to see how much went through it. None that I could see did. When I poured water without a rubber under the spout it all just ran right into the drain.

Now, if I were the drain, concerned a bout not having any water in me I'd feel more comfortable with the rubber.

I hope my technical terminology was interpretable.

John

[PaulKing]

The reason is surface tension. The reason why this does not apply in actual usage is osmosis.

I rreally object to your saying that I manipulate statistics. I do no such thing. Please show what is manipulated or withdraw that charge.


Paul

[Perseus]

Ok, guys, keep the to a minimum.



Cheers,
Perseus

[Flori_DAMAN]

Suface tension is another way of describing the effect soap has on water. It reduces its surface tension allowing it to thin out. Soap is a surfactant. Osmosis is how plants pull water toward their leaves. Waters gravitaional forces require it to find its own level. When the pressure surmounts its present level it will acutally travel against the gravitational forces. Reverse osmosis is an example of putting pressure on a membrane with a small micron rating to eliminate impurities.

By no means do I mean to underestimate your understanding of these basic laws of physics, however rubbers stop most of what passes through them. Sorry if i sounded like I was discounting your obvious base of theory, however I am just trying to bring a semblance of common sense into the pic. If you fill a rubber up with a substance that has a low surface tension yeah it would pass through. Semen has a high surface tension and the small amount of seepage is practically negligible considering it is mixing in with a large amount of antibodies contained in the natural fluids of the recipient. There needs to be a substantial transmission which is greatly reduced by the latex.

John

[PaulKing]

"There needs to be a substantial transmission which is greatly reduced by the latex."

Dear John,

Thanks for your (as expected) well reasoned reply. The only problem with your logic is summed up in the sentence above. A virus such as HIV is so small that it cannot even be seen with a high power optical microscope. No visual test could possibly detect leakage. As an electron microscope cannot image dynamic effects (you cannot metal coat something in transition) the only possible method (existing) is radioactive particle detection. This was the method used by the scientists in the Mariposa Institute Study.

I have been working on a method that uses induced Eddy Currents to detect the 'pores' or holes in the structure by measuring tiny changes in magnetic drag. We are still not sure if such a method can be made to work in practice but early tests hold some promise.

I completely agree with you that as no Swingers ever seem to get AIDS (not one in twenty years if Lifestyles is to be believed) the condom issue is to some extent academic.

Very best wishes (as always),

Paul

[Flori_DAMAN]

Originally posted by PaulKing
"There needs to be a substantial transmission which is greatly reduced by the latex."

Dear John,

Thanks for your (as expected) well reasoned reply. The only problem with your logic is summed up in the sentence above. A virus such as HIV is so small that it cannot even be seen with a high power optical microscope. No visual test could possibly detect leakage. As an electron microscope cannot image dynamic effects (you cannot metal coat something in transition) the only possible method (existing) is radioactive particle detection. This was the method used by the scientists in the Mariposa Institute Study.

I have been working on a method that uses induced Eddy Currents to detect the 'pores' or holes in the structure by measuring tiny changes in magnetic drag. We are still not sure if such a method can be made to work in practice but early tests hold some promise.

I completely agree with you that as no Swingers ever seem to get AIDS (not one in twenty years if Lifestyles is to be believed) the condom issue is to some extent academic.

Very best wishes (as always),

Paul

Paul,

The aids issue has never meant much to me. I had no idea excactly what the physical size of the virus is but figured it was somewhere near what you say.

Rubbers in my mind are more for the more easily transmitted organisms starting with spematoza and ad nauseum to such mosters as herpes symplex or ghonerreah, etc.

Aids however can be greatly reduced by reducing its environement just by the nature that if you eliminate the fluids that it survives in by proxy you eliminate a huge portion of the virus. SO if you have anal intercourse without one and are on the recieving end, i would suggest that a rubber may be paramount to your chances of not getting enough of the virus to affect you.

Alway intellectually challenging but I still go with the common sense stuff.

Cheers.
John,.

[PaulKing]

I agree that (in my opinion) condoms have a somewhat better chance of blocking bacteria than a virus even though some of the studies I have quoted contradict this

Herpes, however, is a virus and is actually the only virus smaller than HIV.

It is always a pleasure debating with you as you always have clear and well reasoned arguments.

Best wishes,

Paul

[Flori_DAMAN]

Paul,

It is a genuine pleasure on my end also.

Concerning the herpes thing. Have you considered the shedding of herpes? I believe if I remember right that even tho it is miniscule the cloud it produces makes it considerable.

John