Oral Sex with Condoms - Common or No?

Hi,

My girlfriend and I are newbies but will be attending our first party this weekend.

What is the usual protocol for a woman or man giving oral sex to another? Are condoms and dental dams really used a lot? That seems a little clinical...

Thanks.

I haven't seen this done at the clubs we've been to. Best to ask what the couple/single you're with prefers.

Have fun. Come back and register on the board. We love getting new members. And be sure to share your experience with us.

We haven't ever seen any in use in any of the on-premise clubs we have attended. Come to think of it we haven't heard of it being done anywhere we have been.

I do know that they manufacture flavored condoms, but in all honesty, I've never known anyone to ever give a blowjob to any man wearing one, in a swinging environment or not. Why would anyone wanna suck on rubber or latex? yuk.

We have never seen them in use for oral sex, but many have asked questions about them. For the most part all we have ever seen are condoms for sex involving vaginal/anal penetration. We have yet to see a dental dam.

Lori

With a condom or dental dam. Either to the licker of the lickeee.

Nope...I've only been to three clubs but I've never seen it. I was concerned at first but then I did some reading on the statistical probabilities of getting an STD from oral sex. The incidence is very low....not non-existent but very low. For my part though I would be reluctant to let a swing partner come in my mouth.

Top Ten Condom Advert Slogans

10. "Never ever deck her with an unwrapped pecker."

9. "Don't be a fool, vulcanize your tool."

8. "The right selection is to protect your erection."

7. "Wrap it in foil, before checking her oil."

6. "A crank with armor will never harm her."

5. "If you really love her, wear a cover."

4. "Don't make a mistake - cover your snake."

3. "Sex is cleaner with a packaged wiener."

2. "If you can't shield your rocket, leave it in your pocket."

1. "No glove, No love."

We have not seen a condom or dental dam used for oral at parties. That's not say they are not used. STD transmission may be low statistically. Condoms are used for vaginal sex. I believe that it is up to the individual to ask or tell what is preferred.

The ONLY major concern I would have is getting a cold sore from you know what. (Playing Devil's Advocate)

I used a rubber during oral sex once (actually two of them, one inside the other). I filled it up with ice water and it made a hell of a dildo. The trick I found is to freeze it but not completely. The absolute cold can be reduced by running warm water over it after your popsicle is very hard.

Then while she fucks it it gets softer. This way she could suck me while having a totally unique experience at the same time.

When it turns into water you can manipulate the condom to do some really great stuff. If you squeeze it just right it bulges and the sensation of the coldness with the variance in size was apparently very intense.

I highly recommend using condoms during oral sex.

I have used a flavored condom one time it wasn't that bad actually maybe because it was mint flavored though...

That was one of the first time i ever gave head I did that.....

Now I really don't care when I give head to my hubby...he enjoys it greatly now too especially now since i have a tongue ring...hehhee

Jenn

Condoms with bubble wrap inside them.

Apparently if you have really been doing your Kegels  you can pop the bubbles.

I can't do it - can you?

on the other hand? now every time hubby sees bubble wrap he gets excited.

P.S. I've never used condoms/dental dams for oral sex either

After twenty years that still has never been a confirmed case of AIDS attributed to oral sex. Also remember condoms contain 41 toxins (FDA list) and three confirmed carcinogens. LIDS, in particular Type 3 (fatal) latex allergy now affects 17 million Americans up from ZERO in 1983.

Condoms have been shown by almost every stufy (Mariposa Institute/Durex, US Naval Institute, Jones and Forrest, Pysicians Consortium to name a few) to provide no protection against a virus and only about 50% protection against some std's.

Condoms are promoted for political not sexual health reasons.

Quote

The estimated annual number of AIDS-related deaths in the United States fell approximately 70 percent from 1995 to 2001, from 51,670 deaths in 1995 to 15,603 deaths in 2001.(5)

Quote

Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)

Quote

Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, MD 20892

Quote

Oral sex is a risk for any person having direct contact with risky fluids (saliva is not one of them) and not a risk for the person who does not have such contact. So, if you are receiving oral sex and are coming into contact only with saliva, then you are not at risk for HIV. However, if you are performing oral sex and are coming into direct contact with blood, semen, pre-ejaculatory fluid, or vaginal secretions, then you are at risk. As with any sexual contact, the use of barrier protection is strongly advised.

* I don't know...I have never used a condom during oral sex, and I understand your point of view as far as condoms go. But the way I see it, I'd rather be safe than sorry. If I still contract AIDS after using a condom, then at least I tried.

I found you quotes very interesting. The odd thing is the figures published by Local Health Authorities show a very different picture. The CDC say they obtain their stats from the local authorities but somehow the figures seem to change in transit.

Here are a few figures to really confuse you.

Oklahoma statistics:

HIV POSITIVE CUMULATIVE FIGURES

121 deaths in 19 years (approx 6 per year).

Pediatric deaths - ONE

Hardly an epidemic in Oklahoma

(No breakdown of hetero percentage available).

MONTANA

Total teenage cases since 1985 - 2 (TWO)

Heterosexual cases (male and female) since 1985 - 67 (SIXTY SEVEN)

Children one to seven in age since 1985 - 4 (FOUR)

The New York State Quarterly AIDS Report (table 4A) reported:-

In the first half of 2000 there was not one single Caucasian teenage female AIDS case attributed to heterosexual sex.

In the first half of 2000 there was not one single teenage male AIDS case (of any race) attributed to heterosexual sex.

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF HETEROSEXUAL AIDS TAKEN FROM THE 32 STATES THAT PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION

9.42%

Lowest figure 1%

Highest figure 26%

INDIA

Excerpted from United News of India:

CIA Report on HIV/AIDS Baseless

by Annapurna Jha

November 10, 2002

''Mr Gates interest in HIV/AIDS projects in India is not meant for charity, as it appears. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributing funds to fight AIDS is to protect his billions of dollars of investments in pharmaceutical companies interested in conducting field trials in India,''

Mr Mulloli said.

Health Minister Shatrughan Sinha has already rejected the CIA report, and the National Intelligence Council clearly stated the CIA estimates to be 'highly exaggerated' and not based on surveillance data collected in India.

Mr Gates has reportedly funded the controversial report and also made huge investments in companies involved in AIDS drug research.

Charging that the CIA's direct and unwarranted involvement in Indian public health issues amounted to direct intervention in its domestic affairs and a challenge to its sovereignty, Mr Mulloli questioned the basis on which the CIA said that 310,000 people had died in India due to AIDS in 1999 alone.

The Indian Parliament talked of a mere 114 AIDS related deaths in 1999.

Excerpted from Pioneer News Service, New Delhi:

Sinha Rejects US Report on AIDS

November 10, 2002

India has rejected an US intelligence agency report which projects that the country will have over 25 million people suffering with AIDS by 2010 even as an NGO charged that the report was aimed at exploiting Indian market for AIDS drugs and vaccines.

Excerpted from the Daily Pioneer:

Mysterious Malaise

by Purushottaman Mulloli of JackIndia

November 17, 2002

The CIA says India will have 25 million infected people by 2010, the maximum in any country. But India has recorded only 287 AIDS deaths in 1997, 217 in 1998, and 114 in 1999. In whose interest is it to push up these figures?

Simple maths?

We are told by the CDC : -

"The HIV/AIDS crisis at home remains tragic as precious lives continue to be lost to the disease. Each year 40,000

Americans are infected with HIV. Currently, an estimated 900,000 Americans are HIV positive and evidence indicates those numbers are increasing,

not declining or even holding steady."

What is startling is that this is the same line we've been told for years now. We supposedly have this increasing number of "HIV converts" (40,000 per year), yet that number, 40,000 remains the same year after year. Weird. It like, 40,000, 40,000, 40,000, 40,000,

40,000 and on and on and we have 'evidence' for increasing seroconversions. Lame.

And that number, 900,000. Someone at the CDC just completely pulled that number from their ass.

In 1990 the CDC retroactively revised downward the estimates of HlV-infected persons for the period of 1985-89 (in the US). It went from 1.2

million to 0.75 million. The number for 1990 itself was said to be about I million (CDC, 1990). Then, in 1996, the CDC retrospectively revised

downward the 1992 estimate to yet another figure of 650,000. By 1996, the number of people said to be infected was between 650,000 and 900,000.

So there's that number 900,000 being used in 1996. Yet now in 2003 we supposedely still have 900,000 ESTIMATED infected people according to the SGN article (they use the word 'currently'). However, in 1999, to further confuse matters, the CDC estimated HIV incidence as approximately 40,000 infections per year and the number of persons living with HIV at about 800,000 to 900,000 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999). So if you're head isn't just spinning quite yet, consider this; if, in 1996, they had an estimated 650,000 to 900,000 HIV 'poz' folk, in 1999 they had 800,000 to 900,000 'poz' folk. Why only increase the lower estimate? Do we now only have ONE estimate and not a range? If we take the 1996 estimate of 900,000 and add 40,000 new cases per year until the end of 2001, we really should have 1,140,000 'poz' people. If we go back to 1992, when the number was said to be a firm 650,000 and add 40,000 cases per year until 2002, we come up with 1,050,000 cases. So where they get this 40,000 number and 900,000 is beyond me. Perhaps they revised the numbers down without really telling anyone.

I hope you are all completely and utterly confused, because frankly, I think the CDC, with all their numerous PhD heads running around, are as equally confused.

Seems you can pick any figure you like and no two sources ever agree with each other or even themselves.

At least there is something for everyone.

This 2001 article may be of some interest.

CDC Knew About Condoms' Limitations, Doctors Say

Foxnews

(Extracts)

Tuesday, July 24, 2001

By Kelley Beaucar

A group of doctors Tuesday claimed that the federal government, specifically the Centers for Disease Control, has for at least a year suppressed a study about the effectiveness of condoms or to be more precise their lack of effectiveness.

The doctors claim that the government has known about the limitations of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases but nevertheless mounted a campaign that deliberately misrepresented the effectiveness of condoms in education curricula and public health programs.

"The entire public health model developed by the CDC and based on the idea that condoms offer protection, is a lie," said Dr. Hall Wallis, a member of consortium. "The skeleton is now out of the closet."

At a Washington, D.C., news conference, the 10,000-member Physicians Consortium claimed that the CDC has known for years that condoms offer little protection against sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis and genital herpes.

Word of the condoms’ shortfalls came in a panel report released Friday by the National Institutes of Health. The NIH panel concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" that condoms protect against STDs.

I recently purchased several flovored condoms (strawberry, cherry, vanilla, blue berry, bananna, mint and chocolate) and flavored dental dams specifically designed for oral to genital contact so I would not be concerned by the toxins condoms/dams contain. As for the risk, if you review the statistics that Roxysbayou posted you will see that approx 75% of women were infected through heterosexual sex. It did not say vaginal penetration and there is no evidence to show that the unfortunate people who contracted HIV were not giving a blow job when they recieved the virus. Although some studies have stated that condoms are not effective in the prevention of STD's until there is something better I will do what I can to be safe and have as much fun as I can.

It would seem that after twenty years and tens of billions of dollars in research their would be evidence of at least ONE case of oral transmission of HIV. I really think it can be taken as fact that HIV cannot be transmitted by oral sex.

With regard to condoms 'formulated to be safe' I must say that I can assert without hesitation or any fear of contradiction that no such latex exists.

The coagulants, antioxidants and vulcanizing agents used in latex are all highly toxic. Some of the worst like Nonox CI and Vulcastab are being replaced but all the 41 currently used agents are on the FDA list of toxins and three on the proven carcinogen list.

Seventeen million Americans have become LIDS suffers in only twenty years. This is a problem that receives little publicity but non the less is very serious. When young healthy men like Lt. Hal Hendserson die of latex allergies one cannot make light of the dangers.

Sorry to sound a little confrontational but I really feel this is a real and serious problem and is being swept under the carpet for political of 'moral' reasons.

Paul,

Apparently I missed something, what does LIDS stand for?

Thanks

Lori

PaulKing:

While I appreciate your point of view on this subject, I have to wonder about your sources. From everything I've ever read, it is an undisputed FACT that HIV can be transmitted by seminal fluids. Male ejaculate from an HIV infected person will absolutely transmit the disease, as will the pre-come. The information you presented regarding the LIDS situation something that I was not aware of, and I intend on pursuing in more depth. Without empirical data to substantiate my opinion, I would still say that on the infrequent occasions that my wife and I would need to use a prophylactic while 'swinging', I dont' feel we would be at substantial risk of LIDS or associated disorders. I do believe that a SINGLE encounter with an infected person can lead to AIDS. For the most part, swingers are people in a low risk group for most STD's, coming from mostly monogamous relationships. That is the saving grace of the lifestyle. The original onset of the disease in the US was traced to a single airline steward, who frequented 'bath houses', and through them spread the disease to a number of cities amongst male homosexuals. If swingers were as prolific in their affairs as the bath houses of that time period, I think we would be at just as great a risk. I do apologize if this is somewhat overlength, and a good portion of this is opinion. By the way, the original post was by my wife. I just had to get my .02 cents in too.

Quote

Originally posted by PaulKing

I really think it can be taken as fact that HIV cannot be transmitted by oral sex.

Paul, I once read that the reason for this is the very strong chemicals present in saliva. The article said the aids virus is "fragile" and easily killed by saliva and stomach acids.

No such protection exists in the lower intestinal tract. Additionally, anal intercourse causes small tears in the rectum, thus giving the virus a direct route into the bloodstream.

I believe the steward you wrote of worked for Scandanavian Airlines and flew to Africa, Europe and America. He was handsome, articulate and had great sexual stamina. His attitude also had some responsibility for the spread of the disease. Even after his diagnosis he continued as before, believing, "If I've got it, everybody else should have it, too."

LIDS stands for Latex Induced Disease Syndrome. It covers: - Latex Type I, II and III allergic reactions (Type III being potentially fatal), Latex Induced Cancers and 132 known reactions to latex chemicals which include everything from mild rashes to cell mutation. The term was first used by 'Elastic', the anti latex pressure group and has now become an umbrella term for all latex 'side effects'.

EXTRACT FROM OSHA REPORT

Use of natural rubber products such as condoms and gloves may result in several varieties of reactions (see table). These reactions include

irritant and several types of allergic reactions. They can vary from localized redness and rash to nasal, sinus, and eye symptoms to asthmatic

manifestations including cough, wheeze, shortness of breath, and chest tightness; and rarely, systemic reactions with swelling of the face, lips, and airways that may progress rapidly to shock and, potentially, death.

When gloves are associated with skin lesions, the most common reaction is irritant contact dermatitis. Irritant contact dermatitis may be due to direct irritation from gloves or glove powder, but may also be due to other causes, such as irritation from soaps or detergents, other chemicals, or incomplete hand drying. Irritant contact dermatitis presents as dried, cracked, split skin.

Although irritant contact dermatitis is not in itself an allergic reaction, the breaking of the intact skin barrier due to these lesions may afford a pathway for latex proteins to gain access, and thus promote development of allergy.

The second type of reaction that may be associated with glove use is allergic contact dermatitis (also known as type IV delayed hypersensitivity or allergic contact sensitivity). When glove use has been associated with this reaction, it appears to be due to the chemicals used in processing NRL or other glove materials. The allergic contact dermatitis has an appearance similar to the typical poison ivy reaction, with blistering, itching, crusting, oozing lesions. Also, like poison ivy, this dermatitis may appear a day or two after the use of gloves or exposure to other sources of chemical sensitizers.

The third and potentially most serious type of reaction sometimes associated with glove use is a true IgE/histamine-mediated (also called

immediate or type I hypersensitivity) to glove protein [in the case of NRL allergy, to NRL protein(s)]. This of reaction can involve local or

systemic symptoms. Localized symptoms include contact urticaria (hives) which appear in the area where contact occurred (in the case of gloves, the hands), but which can spread beyond that area and become generalized. More generalized reactions include allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma. The presence of allergic manifestations to NRL indicates an increased risk for anaphylaxis, a rare but serious reaction experienced by some individuals who have developed an allergy to certain proteins (e.g., insect stings, natural rubber, penicillin). This type I reaction can occur within seconds to minutes of exposure to the allergen (in the case of NRL, to natural rubber proteins) either by touching a product with the allergen (e.g., gloves) or by inhaling the allergen (e.g., powder to which natural rubber proteins from gloves have adsorbed). When such a reaction occurs, it can progress rapidly from swelling of the lips and airways to shortness of, and may progress to shock and death, sometimes within minutes. While any of these signs and symptoms may be the first indication of allergy, in many workers with continued exposure to the allergen (in the case of NRL allergy, to natural rubber), there is progression from skin…

Dear Teknurse/s,

Thank you so much for your informed and interesting reply. I joined this board to interact with others on a social level NOT get involved in heavy and highly controversial debates on condoms and AIDS. I made the mistake of posting two articles on these subjects because it was a subject I have a little expertise in and I thought it they would be of interest to Swingers.

I am torn with regard to the wisdom of getting too involved with the debate my posts have created, as I do not wish to offend anyone nor to preach.

I have decided to continue to reply to posts on the subject until such time as the issue gets too emotional. I don't mind being a little unpopular if I am contributing something but do not want to become a bore or to upset the

very kind, open minded and simply wonderful people who form the regular readership here. I love this board and have no wish to upset anyone.

Having said that was a little surprised by your comment:

Quote

From everything I've ever read, it is an undisputed FACT that HIV can be transmitted by seminal fluids.

Over the years I have read 30,000 studies, 300 books and talked in person with many of the key players from both sides of the debate and can say with absolute conviction that NOTHING is undisputed. I try not to take sides but to evaluate the information in a ration and scientific manner with the ultimate objective of distilling the truth.

It cannot be ignored that a very large and distinguished body of professional opinion (two Nobel Prize winners, one nominee for the Nobel Prize, Members of the Academy of Sciences and over 800 Phd's dispute the very hypothesis that HIV is a sexually transmitted virus. To date no scientific paper has ever established that hypothesis and the virus has never been isolated.

The original announcement by Robert Gallo in 1983 "that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS' was never submitted for peer review and his study has never been published.

Between the Dissident position that AIDS is a myth and the Establishment position that it is as good as fact lies almost every shade of opinion. It is hard to find two scientists who agree on any detail.

I am not promoting the views of any group but feel the public have been mislead into thinking that this subject is 'proven' and that all scientists agree with the sexually transmitted disease theory.

Hope this long-winded reply has not put you to sleep.

Originally posted by PaulKing

EXTRACT FROM OSHA REPORT

I found this article to be very interesting. Several months ago when my granddaughter was about 7 months old she had to have blood drawn. The next morning she awoke with a rash around the withdrawal site (which consisted of little bumps) and a deep red line running on the skin in the path of the vein. As the day wore on it began to spread. Of course she was taken to a doctor immediately. It turned out that she had an allergic reaction to the latex gloves used by the person that withdrew her blood. At least we know now at this early age she is allergic to latex. It seems as though she was born that way as some things that she had done at birth had reactions that are uncommon to the average baby. It pays to pay attention when your body is giving signals that something is not quite right.

Lori

Dear Lori,

Your post raises a very interesting question. Can a person be born with LIDS? Your letter would suggest so. Conventional thinking on the subject says that Latex Allergy is acquired. The evidence for this is that prior to 1983 and the wide spread use of natural latex gloves and condoms, NOT ONE case of latex allergy was reported in America. The US figure now stands at 17,000,000 (FDA).

It could be that a baby, subject to a very small exposure to latex at birth, can in some cases develop a reaction at a highly accelerated pace.

I believe that a large percentage of people diagnosed with Herpes are in fact LIDS sufferers. Symptoms are almost identical and as 70% of Americans have dormant Herpes viruses it is easy to mistake the two.

I am sure you have already done this, but if not, make sure the medical records of the child clearly state 'HIGHLY LATEX ALLERGIC'. In one hospital, five infants died in a single week of Type III latex reactions. Rare as this may be it is a growing danger.

Originally posted by PaulKing

I am sure you have already done this, but if not, make sure the medical records of the child clearly state 'HIGHLY LATEX ALLERGIC'.

Like my granddaughter, my syptoms appeared in small forms and then bloomed into very serious situations. For instance I am allergic to Betadine. That is my largest concern of all my allergies as if I were to be involved in an accident and be unconcious, one of the first things they will do is start and I.V. and what do they cleanse the area with....Betadine. That is more life threatening to me than what ever injuries I may have. I do wear a medical bracelet, one in which has a piece of paper folded up inside of it that tells all of my allergies. I update it as needed and it as common place on my arm as my watch. My daughter shares a lot of my skin, drug and food allergies also (food for me though is only limited to all seafood, shellfish or non as all fish contain traces of iodine, which is essentially what betadine is). I don't know if latex is part of the material used in undergarments but we both have to be very careful of those and we only purchase those that do not have elastic bandings. Neither of my other two kids have any allergies that I know of and can come in contact with any substance (such as latex) or take any medication prescribed to them without any repercussions.

Lori

The latex used in clothing such as stretch jeans is far less toxic than gloves, dams and condoms as manufacture does not require a 'salt' coagulant.

Products like condoms are produced by a process known as coagulant dipping. A former is dipped into a solution of coagulant salts, dried and then dipped into the pre vulcanized latex. The crystals become embedded in the inner surface of the latex like sand on sandpaper.

In the case of a condom , the crystals are than partly dissolved in use by sweat and than ground into the most sensitive bodily tissue (sexual organs) with up to 150 ft lbs of force (depending on position and body weight). A couple making love at a rate of one 6" in/out stroke a second is developing approx. a quarter Horsepower of frictional force (about the same as a small power tool). Absorption from a condom is 200 times faster than from a glove and 10,000 times faster than from near contact with foamed (Dunlop Process) latex in a car seat.

You seem very well informed and clearly are taking every precaution. Don't get latex obsessed but do take reasonable precautions.

Hope this information is of help and does not over alarm you. The risks are real but fairly small.