Possiblity of contracting STD from oral sex?

[Flori_DAMAN]

To elaborate just a bit, going off the top of my bald head.

Condoms are most ineffective with herpes and other viruses such as genital warts...I am not going to type the viral name cuz I can't spell it cuz i am drinking but its something with a palipimoriviurs or something like that.

This particular virus has infected some 29 trillion people. Only three of them know they have it though. Maybe my statistics are wrong, but I believe that is the most worrisome transmission disease that swingers should be aware of, even though most females show no symptoms..or because of it.

John

[Nymph an' Satyr]

I'll take this to a philosophical level, as I am no scientist, and equate this to Pascal's wager.

Plan 1
The Bet: I wear a rubber
The Result: It doesn't work
my cost: - I lose sensation (let's face it - they really aren't fun to wear)
my gain: Nothing

vs.

Plan 2
The Bet: I wear a rubber
The Result: It does work
my loss: - I lose sensation
my gain: - Protection from pregnancy and innumerable diseases.

Hmmmm, there is a cost involved, but I'll take some lost sensation along with the promise of some protection. I.e., there is more to gain by trusting that they work than believeing that they don't.

And per Flori_DAMAN's experiment- I replicated it with the same results. I filled one condom 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.

A valid study nes pa?


I'll follow Plan 2 and l I'm wearing a rubber.

[PaulKing]

You forgot get plan three:

Plan 3
The Bet: I wear a rubber
The Result: It doesn't work as proven.
My cost: - Penile cancer, ovarian cancer, anal cancer cancer, Type IIII reaction - MY LIFE

I am not about to go over the water as a test thing again. Believe me, and everyone else in the industry, that water retention proves nothing about containing a sub micron virus or even bacteria.

If it did, condom testing would be very simple and cheap and we would all avoid the dangers of radioactive particles.

Using a condom you have nothing to loose but your life, sensation and a few dollars.

Come to think of it, you loose sensation when you loose your life, so it is down to two negatives (that's better).


Best wishes,


Paul

[OhioCouple]

I do have a question for you Paul. Wouldn't cervical cancer be the more likely susceptible target since that is what the condom is in closer contact to?

[Nymph an' Satyr]

I don't buy the cancer thing at all. Paul King is the only source that I have read making that allegation. Just don't buy it.....

Of course I don't buy his other arguments either

[PaulKing]

A very interesting question. It would seem logical at face value but as little is known about the exact way that carcinogens work, nothing can be said for certain.

Without getting technical, it is like a smoker getting lung cancer, not mouth or throat cancers.

I great number of factors are at play and all that can be said for certain is exposure to carcinogens increases cancer risk up to one thousand times (more in the case of some mining situations).

I will look at my files and see if I have anything that is jargon free (or almost) on the subject.

Best wishes,

Paul

[PaulKing]

Dear Nymph,

Here are some references regarding cancer:

http://www.families-first.com/featur...riancancer.htm


One or more of the following characteristics puts you at above average risk
of ovarian cancer:

Family history of ovarian cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer.
Personal history of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colon cancer.
No pregnancies or no birth control use and infertility (uninterrupted
ovulation).
Exposure to talc or asbestos (industrial contamination, frequently used
douches, CONDOMS, dusting powder containing talc, used in the genital area.
Increasing age.
Breast-Ovarian Cancer Syndrome(s)
Ashkenazi Jewish population.
Fertility drugs taken for more than three cycles has been linked to an
increased risk.
-

LATEX PROCESSING CHEMICALS
http://www.itcilo.it/english/actrav/.../ic/106490.htm

By John G. Downing, M..D.

First Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, January 26, 1933.

Highly Toxic or Irritant

Aniline
Hexamethyline-tetramine
Ortho-toluidine


Slightly Toxic or Irritant

Alpha-naphthylamine
Beta
Methyline aniline
Para-Phenylinediamine

FROM :- http://193.51.164.11/htdocs/monograp...ine-ortho.html

Overall evaluation

ortho-Toluidine is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).


Para-toluidine

Inhalation

Blue lips or finger nails. Blue skin.
Confusion. Dizziness. Headache. Laboured
breathing. Nausea. Shortness of breath.
Unconsciousness. Weakness.

Ingestion

Blue lips or fingernails. Blue skin. Dizziness.
Headache. Laboured breathing (further see
Inhalation).

ROUTES OF EXPOSURE:
The substance can be absorbed into the body by inhalation and through
the skin and by ingestion.

INHALATION RISK:
Evaporation at 20°C is negligible; a harmful concentration of airborne
particles can, however, be reached quickly on spraying or when
dispersed, especially if powdered.

EFFECTS OF SHORT-TERM EXPOSURE:
The substance irritates the eyes and the skin. The substance may cause
effects on the blood, bladder and kidneys , resulting in tissue lesions and
formation of methaemoglobin. Exposure to high concentrations may
result in damage to kidneys and bladder. The effects may be delayed.
Medical observation is indicated. See Notes.
EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM OR REPEATED EXPOSURE:
Repeated or prolonged contact may cause skin sensitization. The
substance may have effects on the blood , resulting in formation of
methaemoglobin (see Notes).

The following chemicals are known or suspected carcinogens. This list has been compiled from a number of sources, but it is not (and cannot be) comprehensive.

Therefore, the absence of a chemical from this list does not mean that it cannot have carcinogenic properties. Neither does the presence of a chemical in the list indicate that it is a proven carcinogen.

However, users should treat the materials listed with the caution due to suspected carcinogens, and gather as much safety data as possible before
starting work. Restrictions apply to the use of some of these chemicals in the U.K. We have done our best to ensure the data below is as
accurate as possible, but cannot accept responsibility for its use or mis-use.

Aniline
4,4'-Methylenedianiline
Trichlormethine (Trimustine hydrochloride)

http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/carcinogens.html


25249.8. List Of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer Or Reproductive Toxicity.
(a) On or before March 1, 1987, the Governor shall cause to be published a list of those chemicals known to the state
to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity within the meaning of this chapter, and he shall cause such list to be revised
and republished in light of additional knowledge at least once per year thereafter. Such list shall include at a minimum those substances identified by reference in Labor Code Section 6382(b)(1) and those substances identified
additionally by reference in Labor Code Section 6382(d).


Aniline 62533 January 1, 1990
Benzene 71432 February 27, 1987
Trichlormethine (Trimustine hydrochloride) 817094 January 1, 1992
4,4'-Methylenedianiline 101779 January 1, 1988
4,4'-Methylenedianiline dihydrochloride 13552448 January 1, 1988

FROM CANCER DATABASE

benzene, aromatic amines – Rubber processing chemicals


Carcinogen :-
lymphatic & haemato-poietic system (leukemia) (bone marrow) bladder
http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/cid/25-3.html

If you would like more just let me know.



Best wishes,


Paul

[Flori_DAMAN]

cancer has been linked to everything. Plastics have long been in the limelight. It would appear that cancer did not exist 20,000 years ago according to some studies done on well preserved bodies found frozen.

The illogical link must be that manmade chemicals cause it. The fact is that the life expectancy of these frozen ancestors was about 25 years. Maybe they didn't live long enough to have cancer.

It is well established that plastics....i refuse to get technical about the ions that are offgassed by various poly's.....cause allergic reactions and mutate certain cells of certain people that may be vulnerable. Remember sudden shock syndrome from tampons?

Remember the deformed babies in the 50's? From oh shit Paul would know....some birth control pill i believe.

We are mostly not allergic to condoms otherwise the baby boomers that use them would be dying like flies and the life expectancy would demonstrate it.

I have to say that to propogate that rubbers are unsafe is a topic that has been well discussed and maybe we should move on.

John

[PaulKing]

Thalidomide is a drug that was introduced on to the market in 1957 in West German and later Worldwide.

Thalidomide soon became a drug prescribed to pregnant women to combat symptoms associated with morning sickness. When taken during the first trimester of pregnancy, Thalidomide prevented the proper growth of the foetus resulting in horrific birth defects in thousands of children around the world. These children were born in the late 1950's and early 1960's and became known as "Thalidomide babies".

I think this is what you refered to.

Best wishes,

Paul

[OhioCouple]

Originally posted by Nymph an' Satyr
I don't buy the cancer thing at all. Paul King is the only source that I have read making that allegation. Just don't buy it.....

Of course I don't buy his other arguments either

I don't know that I agree or disagree with Paul's theories or learned knowledge. What I can tell you based on fact is that in 1987 at the age of 27, I was diagnosed with cervical cancer. Now laugh if you will, my doctor at the time was a D.O. I stayed with him until he retired. (Best doctor I've ever had, I might add)

I distinctly remember that one of his questions was if I was still using condoms for intercourse. Which I was. (I couldn't use any other form of b/c). Now I don't know if this was meant to imply that perhaps they could have been a reason for it or if he thought maybe some sort of semen caused it. I was to upset too think about anything except that I had received a 'death penalty'.

Cervical cancer was not part of our family history. Breast, colon and brain were. The odd thing is, that out of my generation, I have had 3 female cousins that became inflicted with the same disease. We all used condoms as none of us could take conventional b/c.

This is why I like to hear Paul's point of view and read the articles. I have two daughters in which neither can take conventional b/c and both use condoms as does my daughter in law, since based on our family history he won't allow his wife to use anything else. I'd like to be as informed as I can and at least have the information to offer to them as opposed to rejecting someone's point of view and learning nothing. I think we can both agree that Paul is well educated on the subject. Maybe he is biased, maybe he isn't. But what if it turns out to be fact? Wouldn't you have rather had some sort of knowledge before hand?

My quarter's worth, I'm out of pennies.

[PaulKing]

" Thalidomiders (as we call ourselves) feel compelled to remind the world of the tragedy of the late fifties and early sixties when 10,000 - 12,000 babies were born needlessly disabled as a result of negligence and greed."

Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada


Are condoms the new Thalidomide? Like thalidomide, the condom is promoted as 'safe' when everyone involved with their manufacture knows that the opposite is true.

[OhioCouple]

Originally posted by PaulKing

If you would like more just let me know.

Paul, I will PM you with my personal address. I'd hate to make anyone have to read more than they really want to know.

Thanks,

Lori

[Flori_DAMAN]

Yes Paul,

I knew you knew it.

Lori, you make a very valid point.

I must reconsider this. Hey you never know.

I guess that with the rampant diseases transmitted sexually that we all want to know that something will reduce our odds.

And certainly as was pointed out there is nothing that solves a problem without creating another.

I had a teacher once jump down my throat evertime I chewed on a pen cap. I was a chronic pen cap chewer. The man got on me so hard that to this day when I see anyone chewing one I tell them to quit it because there is no usefull purpose and its plastic.

Odd correlation but apro po. Aprobo. Apro bo. SIMILIAR.

Maybe there is no odd reduction.

I smoke anyhow.

John

[OhioCouple]

I would also like to add that my granddaughter at less than a year of age suffered a sever allergic reaction after having blood drawn. The doctor's confirmed it as being an allergy to latex. (Hence the gloves used).

So, Paul, I'll ask you this, (and feel free to send it to me privately although I believe it should be posted for anyone to read or see) is there anything publicated that shows increased intolerance or susceptibility in subsequent generations of latex? Kind of like how some are prone to allergies and pass those genetic traits down to their offspring?

My girls are 22 and 20. My grandaughter is a just a little over a year old and is reacting adversely to latex. Given her genetic history, she most likely will not be able to use conventional b/c or condoms.

I apologize for my simplistic questions, I don't have the learned knowledge that many of you possess on this board, but I'm always willing to try and learn more and I'm not afraid to ask.

[PaulKing]

Dear Lori,

That is such a good question. It should be simple to answer but the sad fact is that almost no research has been done.

In under twenty year latex allergies have grown from not one single reported case, to a syndrome with 17 million suffers in America. Never in history has such a thing ever occured before so fast.

It is known that the allergy is aquired by exposure (the more exposure, the greater the chance of a reaction) but it is not known if the damage can be passed down (genetic damage). Funding for latex/LIDS/cancer study is very hard to come by which is part of the reason I am trying to break the wall of silence on this tragedy in the making.

Best wishes,


Paul