Oral Sex (Woman on Man) and HIV/AIDS Contraction

[Frank2500]

This is a topic that has always confused me. Please, if any of you may have experience in the medical field or have any immediate family members who may be doctors or nurses, I would sincerely appreciate the truth and your confident feedback on this issue. My question is, can a man contract HIV and eventually AIDS from having oral sex performed on him by different women over time? I think I do recall having watched a US talk show in my mid 20s where an HIV-positive woman stated that many people aren't aware that HIV can be obtained from oral sex (woman performing on a man). On the other hand, someone who supposedly has a bit of knowledge of the medical field said to me that the risk is a lot greater for a man when he performs oral sex on a woman because the "pores in his tongue" can contract the virus.



It's not easy, folks. Due to the very high rate of HIV/AIDS here in my home country in Central Africa where I've been working so far for close to 3 years on a temporary contractual basis, I've been left with no choice but to abstain from sex for all these years in order to preserve my health and for a man, it's not an easy thing to do at all. I just don't want to take any risks because my health comes first. I don't even trust the effectiveness and quality of a lot of the condoms that are sold in pharmacies here. I just can't wait to get out of here eventually so that I can be intimate with more than one sexual partner without necessarily being as worried and scared.




I was thinking that since I follow the abstinence route, maybe I could settle for the women performing oral sex on me but once again I find that very, very risky. I don't care if they think I'm there's something wrong or that I'm insulting them or don't have confidence in them by insisting on pursuing abstinence because once again...my health comes first. I just can't afford to do anything that would cause me to regret greatly later; this is one's whole life that is involved here. And the women are so sexy and beautiful. Lots of big curves, wide hips and big asses as I love...but I just can't fool around.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Yes, it is possible to transmit the virus orally.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/transmission.htm

Can I get HIV from oral sex?
Yes, it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through performing or receiving oral sex, though it is a less common mode of transmission than other sexual behaviors (anal and vaginal sex). There have been a few cases of HIV transmission from performing oral sex on a person infected with HIV. While no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is, evidence suggests that the risk is less than that of unprotected anal or vaginal sex.

However, it's also very unlikely. HIV is of course horrible to contract, but it is actually a difficult virus to transmit. There is a lot of research regarding "serodiscordant" couples, where one partner is HIV+ and the other negative. You would think that the transmission rate between couples would be high, but it's not.

http://plhivpreventionresources.org/?action=main.abstract&id=1519

Between January 2006 and December 2008, initially seronegative spouses were tested for HIV at 6-month intervals...Of 1927 couples, 84 (4.3%) seroconversions occurred, representing a seroconversion rate of 1.71 per 100 person-years.

That's about a 2% per year transmission rate, without controlling for condom use. That study was in China. Another one in Africa, in areas with the least condom usage and education, set the transmission rate at 20% per year. That's between a cohabitating couple who probably doesn't use condoms. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADT871.pdf

Of course, condom use would cut that chance drastically:
http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/dow...al transmission within discordant couples.pdf

condom use in serodiscordant couples is associated with 80% reductions in HIV transmission.

So if you picked out an HIV+ girlfriend, moved her in with you, and fvcked her for a year without a condom, you have only a 20% chance of getting HIV. If you used a condom for that year, it's more like 2%.

Statistics like these lump everyone together, and assume that your choice of a mate is at random. But obviously that is not the case. The chance of having HIV will also strongly correlate with a lack of intelligence, education, and resources. Imagine a spectrum from illiterate village prostitute to university professor. The prostitute might have a 50% chance of being HIV+ and the professor a .5% chance. Your choice of the right woman could further reduce your risk 100 times over.

If you do all of these things to reduce your risk, it still never goes away, but it becomes so low that realistically it's just another risk of living.

 

[Frank2500]

Re:

I appreciate your feedback, Bible Belt. I guess I'll just stick to not having oral sex performed on me or performing it on anyone either for as long as I'm here. Can't take any risks.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Life is full of risks, Frank, especially in Africa. I think that if you found an intelligent and educated woman, got her tested first, and still always used a condom, then your risk of HIV would be less than your risk of dying or becoming maimed in a car crash. But then again, if you're consumed with worry about STDs, the sex is not going to be worth the stress.

 

[Zunder]

I am going to go against the grain here.
HIV does NOT cause AIDS.

HIV is not even strong enough to cause a common cold.

The whole AIDS is a virus (HIV) is one of the biggest scams of the 20th century.
Robert Gallo, the self-proclaimed discoverer of the virus that "causes"AIDS was/is a shady character who suckered the whole world in an impromptu press conference many years ago.

Let me tell you - AIDS is a syndrome, not a virus. HIV fails KOCH's postulates dismally.

The cause of AIDS is a degradingly decadent lifestyle combined/which leads to - a massively compromised immune system )as seen by the 24/7 partying, druggie homosexual sect of a portion of the population of San Francisco in the late 1960's thru the 70's and into the 80's), and also now the intake of "HIV Drugs" which do nothing more than compormise the immune system even more.

The "AIDS Epidemic" of Africa is nothing but a sham instigated by the massively powerful and rich Drug companies,
HIV is a retro-virus and has been in human kind since humainty began. A retro-virus does not destroy cells. It cant.

I repeat again (and look it up if you don't know what I am talking about) HIV FAILS KOCHS POSTULATES DISMALLY!!!

You die of typhoid in Africa -they doctors report will say you died of AIDS. Thus increasing the "statistics" which "prove" its an epidemic, whichm means more "AIDS Drugs" are required to be produced, which makes the Drug companies even richer and more powerful literally day by day.

I refer you to the writings of Gary Null and Peter Duesburg.

But make your own conclusions.

I will never catch AIDS because you cant "Catch" it.
But you still can catch syphillis, gonorrhea, and herpes - much more of a concern to me.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Frank,
This interests me too...perhaps you should contact Collossus,his advice is cutting edge.

 

[Frank2500]

Re:

I appreciate your responses, you all. @Bible Belt: Where I am is quite a far west sort of place in the sense that in addition to many condoms not being that effective, HIV/AIDS tests on this end too aren't always very reliable. I've heard of people who get tested at clinic on this end and their results say "HIV Positive" and they go to another clinic and the result is "Negative." So to protect myself and as you rightfully concluded, I'd rather not go that far with any of them and try to endure and sit tight on abstinence for at least one more year despite how hard it is.


@Scaramouche: So how does one get in contact with "Colossus?" If you think you could get him to read this topic, that would be great. I appreciate it.

 

[Frank2500]

@Zunder: I appreciate your own analysis/perspective but I must also tell you in all honestly that I am aware of quite a good number of people in my country who truly did die of AIDS, so one can't really say AIDS is a scam or an invented thing. During my high school days in my country in 1996 and a couple years before that, the culture was a lot more conservative. Now with the influence of cable TV, the Internet, movies, music videos etc., a lot of women of the younger generation are copying virtually everything they see in terms of clothing, lifestyle, etc. So things like adultery have become commonplace in the society; artists making videos with provocatively dressed women shaking their butts to the camera are now considered normal but the embarrassing thing is that parents can't watch such videos in the presence of their children. Either the children leave the living room out of respect or the parent flips the channel. There's so much immorality in the society.

 

[squirrels]

Aside from the conspiracy theories about HIV...and I'm not saying they're true or not true, but they ARE conspiracy theories...

HIV can be transmitted by oral sex, but the transmission rate is VERY low. It's in the range of birth control failure rates.

Now if there is exposed blood (i.e. menses or other diseases causing open sores, or vaginal trauma), then the infection probability goes up somewhat significantly.

But you should be able to see that for oral unless you're actually tongue-effing her. Which is a wasted effort...giving oral, all the action is at the cl!t.

Receiving is a little trickier to tell, since sores or cuts (or bleeding gums...mine bleed a little after a vigorous brushing) in the mouth could easily be missed.

The only surefire way to avoid catching HIV from f**king around is to not f**k around. Same way abstinence is the only 100% effective contraception.

You have to decide how much risk you're willing to take to enjoy sex. Like any other "extreme sport" in this world. Most people don't want to hear that, but it's the truth.

 

[Zunder]

@Zunder: I appreciate your own analysis/perspective but I must also tell you in all honestly that I am aware of quite a good number of people in my country who truly did die of AIDS, so one can't really say AIDS is a scam or an invented thing. During my high school days in my country in 1996 and a couple years before that, the culture was a lot more conservative. Now with the influence of cable TV, the Internet, movies, music videos etc., a lot of women of the younger generation are copying virtually everything they see in terms of clothing, lifestyle, etc. So things like adultery have become commonplace in the society; artists making videos with provocatively dressed women shaking their butts to the camera are now considered normal but the embarrassing thing is that parents can't watch such videos in the presence of their children. Either the children leave the living room out of respect or the parent flips the channel. There's so much immorality in the society.

Of course you can die of AIDS. But you can not die of HIV.
I say again - HIV is not the cause of AIDS, it is not the cause of anything. It is a harmless "virus".
AIDS is not a virus it is a syndrome - you can not "catch" AIDS.

A quired
I mmune
D eficiency
S yndrome

The whole point o it is this: We have all been led to believe AIDS is caused by a viral agent.
This is impossible as it fails Kochs Postulates.
Koch's Postulates Unmet

Scientists dissenting against this widely accepted virus-AIDS hypothesis often raise as their most fundamental point that this theory has simply never been proven. Introduced by Robert Koch in the past century, the classical criteria for showing whether a disease is infectious and caused by a particular microbe are called Koch's Postulates. But as the Harvard molecular biologist Walter Gilbert, a Nobel laureate, points out, these criteria have not been met for HIV:

Postulate 1: The germ must be found in the affected tissues in all cases of the disease. However, no HIV at all can be isolated from at least 10 to 20 percent of AIDs patients; until the recent advent of highly sensitive methods, no direct trace of HIV could be found in the majority of AIDS cases. Further, HIV cannot be isolated from the cells in the lesions of Kaposi's sarcoma, nor from the nerve cells of patients with AIDs dementia.

Postulate 2: The germ must be isolated from other germs and from the host's body. The amounts of HIV in AIDS patients are typically so low that the virus must be isolated indirectly from a patient, only after first isolating huge numbers of cells from the patient and then reactivating the virus. In classical diseases, enough active virus is present to isolable directly from the blood or affected tissue; anywhere from one million to one billion units of virus per milliliter of body fluid can be found during the time most viruses cause , and viruses of the same class as HIV are found at levels between 100,000 and 10 million units per milliliter. HIV, on the other hand, is usually found in less than five units and never in more than a few thousand units per milliliter of blood plasma.

Postulate 3: The germ must cause the sickness when injected into healthy hosts. HIV has not been shown to cause disease when injected experimentally into chimpanzees, nor when accidentally injected into human health care workers, even though the virus successfully infects those hosts. If for ethical or other reasons this third postulate cannot be tested from some particular germ, strong alternative evidence has to be provided by specific therapies that neutralize the microbe and thereby prevent the disease; such therapies would include antibiotics or vaccines. However, no therapies or antibodies against HIV have been able to prevent AIDS diseases, although new drugs and vaccines are continually being proposed.

Postulate 4: The same germ must once again be isolated from the newly diseased host. Until the third postulate can be met, this one is irrelevant.

The failure to meet Koch's postulates raises questions about whether AIDS is even infectious at all. Koch's postulates are the standard criteria for determining disease agents. When they are not met, strong alternative evidence must be produced to support any infectious agent hypotheses.

The burden of such proof is therefore on those who claim that HIV causes AIDS, as noted by Beverly Griffin, director of the Department of Virology at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School in London. This burden is especially high for HIV hypothesis supporters in view of the special characteristics that had to be attributed to HIV in order to connect it with AIDS. First, the virus had to be credited with a latent period of several years between infection and AIDS. But when diseases are said to occur only years after infection by a virus, it can be difficult to be sure that other risk factors have not instead caused the disease. Second, because HIV is conspicuously absent form lesions, scientists had to hypothesize that the virus caused disease by indirect means in the body, in spite of a troubling lack of evidence for such notions. Inventions such as these can be used to blame virtually any microbe for any disease.

 

[PUA Comic]

It should seem odd to you that out of all the heterosexual people you know, that 90%+ of them have had sex without a condom, yet I bet NONE of them have AIDS. Hmmm.

Do a search on the "heterosexual AIDS Myth"

 

[PUA Comic]

It's not easy, folks. Due to the very high rate of HIV/AIDS here in my home country in Central Africa where I've been working so far for close to 3 years on a temporary contractual basis...

Just curious and not wanting to sound racist, but what percentage of the people that have AIDS are white VS black?

Also, why is there such a high rate of AIDS in Africa as opposed to the rest of the world?

Thanks