Hey girls (and boys),
Have you seen this? I am glad I always use condoms for oral! A HIV/oral sex research paper
Have you seen this? I am glad I always use condoms for oral! A HIV/oral sex research paper
Oral Sex and HIV
- Thread starter coccinelle
- Start date
political based agenda thread.
Who is facing2007.ca...
It is the person who wrote the artical.
This thread and the "research paper" are a political based agenda thread and "Op-Ed".
Who is facing2007.ca...
It is the person who wrote the artical.
This thread and the "research paper" are a political based agenda thread and "Op-Ed".
any college professors in the house
I am not a writer or a researcher (but I am a smart person who knows agenda and spin).
So I am hoping a college professors could grade the quality of the "research paper" linked in the opening post of this thread.
I believe such a grading will reveal the "research paper" to be worthless.
Also I want everyone to know that the linked "research paper" is not a published article from a professional, it is a student wishing to present a personal perspective that they want us to be aware of ("to believe").
I am not a writer or a researcher (but I am a smart person who knows agenda and spin).
So I am hoping a college professors could grade the quality of the "research paper" linked in the opening post of this thread.
I believe such a grading will reveal the "research paper" to be worthless.
Also I want everyone to know that the linked "research paper" is not a published article from a professional, it is a student wishing to present a personal perspective that they want us to be aware of ("to believe").
It's pure agenda and speculation, and it sure ain't science. If this is science then I am the reincarnation of Albert Einstein.
Haarrggghhh!!!
Have anybody noticed how much documentation was consulted by the paper`s writers to produce this paper? 2 pages in tiny caracters!! And footnotes using almost 1/4 of almost every pages!!
Lots of documentation that can be used to draw whatever conclusion you want, specially when they take care to mention the procedures used to grade these statistics can`t be accurate because it`s impossible to check all variables!
So, if you`re drunk, already have STI brewing on the back burner, sometimes have unprotected sex, and have some food-induced mouth weakness then, statistically, you are at risk of catching AIDS 0.04 times out of 100, right?
Unless, of course, all test subjects were held in a lab, tested to ensure the ``clean`` subjects had no STI what so ever, the HIV subjects had nothing else but HIV, all were prohibited/controlled to do anything else than oral sex, all were fed only yogurt to ensure no mouth dammages, were prohibited from drinking or smoking, and all had to have oral sex a specific amount of time per day... Then, and only then, are these results meaningful.
We`re talking about a possibility of 0.04%. Read carefully here, that`s on 100 acts, only 0.04 will get infected. To get 1 chance of getting infected, you need 2500 acts! And that`s not even ``you will get it``, that`s a possibility! This 0.04% is in fact, statistically totally irrelevant, because too much depends on methedology used and on the ``human factor``. Anybody doing profesional statistics on something with so many variables will confirm this: the more variables, the less accurate the results.
Now, I do not in any way intend to minimize any possible risks or trying to encourage peoples to do stuff: to each it`s own. For me, forget HIV, there`s plenty of STI preventing me to get to start with already.
But, I hate these kind of psuedo-scientific papers who only contribute to either scaring peoples off or make them ``immunized`` against any future ``real`` evidence that might surface.
Coccinelle, this post is in no way reflecting on you or your decision of posting this document. This is only my opinion, nothing directed to you. It`s perfectly ok for you to post this.
Have anybody noticed how much documentation was consulted by the paper`s writers to produce this paper? 2 pages in tiny caracters!! And footnotes using almost 1/4 of almost every pages!!
Lots of documentation that can be used to draw whatever conclusion you want, specially when they take care to mention the procedures used to grade these statistics can`t be accurate because it`s impossible to check all variables!
So, if you`re drunk, already have STI brewing on the back burner, sometimes have unprotected sex, and have some food-induced mouth weakness then, statistically, you are at risk of catching AIDS 0.04 times out of 100, right?
Unless, of course, all test subjects were held in a lab, tested to ensure the ``clean`` subjects had no STI what so ever, the HIV subjects had nothing else but HIV, all were prohibited/controlled to do anything else than oral sex, all were fed only yogurt to ensure no mouth dammages, were prohibited from drinking or smoking, and all had to have oral sex a specific amount of time per day... Then, and only then, are these results meaningful.
We`re talking about a possibility of 0.04%. Read carefully here, that`s on 100 acts, only 0.04 will get infected. To get 1 chance of getting infected, you need 2500 acts! And that`s not even ``you will get it``, that`s a possibility! This 0.04% is in fact, statistically totally irrelevant, because too much depends on methedology used and on the ``human factor``. Anybody doing profesional statistics on something with so many variables will confirm this: the more variables, the less accurate the results.
Now, I do not in any way intend to minimize any possible risks or trying to encourage peoples to do stuff: to each it`s own. For me, forget HIV, there`s plenty of STI preventing me to get to start with already.
But, I hate these kind of psuedo-scientific papers who only contribute to either scaring peoples off or make them ``immunized`` against any future ``real`` evidence that might surface.
Coccinelle, this post is in no way reflecting on you or your decision of posting this document. This is only my opinion, nothing directed to you. It`s perfectly ok for you to post this.
The only study I know of that specifically addressed this issue was done in a San Francisco hospital.
I will come back later with a link to an article about this study but for now let me tell what I recall.
As I remember it, the study involved 200 gay couples. One partner had hiv/aids and the other did not.
On average the uninfected partner gave natural (bare) oral sex with completion approximatly
70 to 80 times a year.
Not one of the uninfected partners contacted hiv/aids. They continued to follow the 200 couples
for an additional year and still not one uninfected partner got infected.
No one got infected but they still needed to come up with a statistic. They concluded that the risk
involved was something like .004% or .0004 not .04%. I recall 1 in 40 thousand?
Most importantly is this risk factor was regarding oral sex with hiv/aids infected men, not horny straight men on merb.
If anyone here is good a internet research please try to find this study and post a link. I will also do the same.
I will come back later with a link to an article about this study but for now let me tell what I recall.
As I remember it, the study involved 200 gay couples. One partner had hiv/aids and the other did not.
On average the uninfected partner gave natural (bare) oral sex with completion approximatly
70 to 80 times a year.
Not one of the uninfected partners contacted hiv/aids. They continued to follow the 200 couples
for an additional year and still not one uninfected partner got infected.
No one got infected but they still needed to come up with a statistic. They concluded that the risk
involved was something like .004% or .0004 not .04%. I recall 1 in 40 thousand?
Most importantly is this risk factor was regarding oral sex with hiv/aids infected men, not horny straight men on merb.
If anyone here is good a internet research please try to find this study and post a link. I will also do the same.
Also you should know that the Canadian governments official stance on any risk involved with natural oral sex (uncovered) is that it is negligible.
Negligible meaning so insignificant as to be virtually non-existent.
Negligible defined:
From Websters;
so small or unimportant or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention.
From Encarta;
insignificant: too small or unimportant to be worth considering.
Negligible meaning so insignificant as to be virtually non-existent.
Negligible defined:
From Websters;
so small or unimportant or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention.
From Encarta;
insignificant: too small or unimportant to be worth considering.
I prefer to take my information from reliable resources such as CDC, Health Canada etc. rather than some students term paper.
The official stand is that you would need a bucket of saliva to find enough active HIV virus to present a risk.
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
The official stand is that you would need a bucket of saliva to find enough active HIV virus to present a risk.
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
naughtylady said:
And saliva is known as, and has been proven over and over again as an aid/hiv super killer!
Even academia has dissenting views on the HIV/AIDS, some claiming like http://duesberg.com/ that HIV risks have been overblown by the CDC and drug companies to market toxic drugs like AZT which were originally deemed too toxic for cancer patients in the 1970's. Thousnds of individuals are HIV positive and have had no signs of AIDS at all, many children of HIV positive mothers no longer test HIV positive. Wear protection for chlamidia and syphillis which are signifficantly on the rise and real risks. For statistics, teenagers and Yuppies only wear protection about 50% of the time !!!!naughtylady said:
Enjoy sex and try not to worry, worrying will kill you slowly ;-)
I do volunteer work as an HIV educator and counselor (I would not bullshit about something like this).
Trust me: you are NOT going to contract HIV from oral sex. You have a better chance of being killed by a frozen fish falling off the roof of the Vogue Hotel than you have of getting the virus from DATY.
Unless, maybe, you were doing it on a heavily menstruating HIV+ SP while your mouth is filled with open sores. And if you are doing that, you have bigger problems.
Trust me: you are NOT going to contract HIV from oral sex. You have a better chance of being killed by a frozen fish falling off the roof of the Vogue Hotel than you have of getting the virus from DATY.
Unless, maybe, you were doing it on a heavily menstruating HIV+ SP while your mouth is filled with open sores. And if you are doing that, you have bigger problems.
Well...
I am not going to try and be the defender of the article, I think everyone has to make their own decisions but in case someone doesn't have time to read the article, I thought I would respond to some of the comments above that maybe made a mistake on a couple of things:
- the bibliography contains like 50 articles from published medical journals and from the canadian health organization. I think this is serious research even if the author was a student who organized it into a paper. If you can read the paper and assume that all of the sources he used were valid, and still find that the information is not important, than that is one thing. However, if you are saying that it is not important only because you think the author lied about his sources or he was someone who wasn't "qualified" to write about them... I think you should re-examine the bibliography. I looked up about 10 of the sources (from medical journals) and they are really interesting and follow with what the author said in his paper (the 7% and 0.04% numbers, the alcohol one (!), the oral tissue infections...).
- If you read the paper it states that there IS hiv in saliva, but very little and that saliva is NOT a risk for hiv. What it is saying is that saliva does attack hiv but that it is not fast enough to kill it before someone gets infected, like if someone had cum in their mouth saliva wouldn't necessarily kill the HIV fast enough.
- For me, any chance of getting HIV is serious, especially when it compounds over multiple encounters! I don't think I perform oral sex 500 times a year but more than 100. I don't want HIV. This research and the numbers are definitely convincing for me. Maybe if I was older I wouldn't be as worried about it.
- I do agree with the comments above that say the biggest fear with unprotected oral is STIs, but that hiv is more likely to be transmitted when there are STIs is true. It has been in the papers lots lately with syphillis and china. My doctor said that one reason HIV rates in canada are rising is because of the syphillis outbreak in 2000. That makes it even more scary to not use condoms.
- Lastly, I guess if I am thinking about being one of my clients, would I have sex with someone if I knew they had HIV, even with a condom? If they were a SP who does unprotected oral, are they more likely to have HIV?
I don't know, maybe I am just scared but I think it is a topic that is scary enough for me to choose to be very safe. I think everyone has to try and educate themselves and make their own choices but I do think this research is solid and shouldn't be discounted because the guy that wrote it is a student. Even if you choose not to follow his advice, the actual material is good.
I am not going to try and be the defender of the article, I think everyone has to make their own decisions but in case someone doesn't have time to read the article, I thought I would respond to some of the comments above that maybe made a mistake on a couple of things:
- the bibliography contains like 50 articles from published medical journals and from the canadian health organization. I think this is serious research even if the author was a student who organized it into a paper. If you can read the paper and assume that all of the sources he used were valid, and still find that the information is not important, than that is one thing. However, if you are saying that it is not important only because you think the author lied about his sources or he was someone who wasn't "qualified" to write about them... I think you should re-examine the bibliography. I looked up about 10 of the sources (from medical journals) and they are really interesting and follow with what the author said in his paper (the 7% and 0.04% numbers, the alcohol one (!), the oral tissue infections...).
- If you read the paper it states that there IS hiv in saliva, but very little and that saliva is NOT a risk for hiv. What it is saying is that saliva does attack hiv but that it is not fast enough to kill it before someone gets infected, like if someone had cum in their mouth saliva wouldn't necessarily kill the HIV fast enough.
- For me, any chance of getting HIV is serious, especially when it compounds over multiple encounters! I don't think I perform oral sex 500 times a year but more than 100. I don't want HIV. This research and the numbers are definitely convincing for me. Maybe if I was older I wouldn't be as worried about it.
- I do agree with the comments above that say the biggest fear with unprotected oral is STIs, but that hiv is more likely to be transmitted when there are STIs is true. It has been in the papers lots lately with syphillis and china. My doctor said that one reason HIV rates in canada are rising is because of the syphillis outbreak in 2000. That makes it even more scary to not use condoms.
- Lastly, I guess if I am thinking about being one of my clients, would I have sex with someone if I knew they had HIV, even with a condom? If they were a SP who does unprotected oral, are they more likely to have HIV?
I don't know, maybe I am just scared but I think it is a topic that is scary enough for me to choose to be very safe. I think everyone has to try and educate themselves and make their own choices but I do think this research is solid and shouldn't be discounted because the guy that wrote it is a student. Even if you choose not to follow his advice, the actual material is good.
coccinelle,
I had the idea when I read your first post in this thread that you were an SP trying to justify the practicing of covered oral sex and encourage more widespread use of the practice by clients.
While your post may be viewed as a legitimate, scientifically bolstered attempt to support this agenda, others have debated the science. I think nobody would argue there is zero risk of getting HIV through , but it is very very minimal.
From the client`s perspective, consider that CBJ is not nearly as enjoyable as for most men. If it were, then whatever slight additional risk there is would never be assumed. In my case, I cannot cum from CBJ any more. In my younger days I did not mind it so much and I was able to hold out longer with it, but now by process of age, nature and densisitization through repeated over time, I am able to hold out longer with than I ever did with CBJ in my younger days. Most clients, I think, are the same way as me. At least those in my age group.
I had the idea when I read your first post in this thread that you were an SP trying to justify the practicing of covered oral sex and encourage more widespread use of the practice by clients.
While your post may be viewed as a legitimate, scientifically bolstered attempt to support this agenda, others have debated the science. I think nobody would argue there is zero risk of getting HIV through , but it is very very minimal.
From the client`s perspective, consider that CBJ is not nearly as enjoyable as for most men. If it were, then whatever slight additional risk there is would never be assumed. In my case, I cannot cum from CBJ any more. In my younger days I did not mind it so much and I was able to hold out longer with it, but now by process of age, nature and densisitization through repeated over time, I am able to hold out longer with than I ever did with CBJ in my younger days. Most clients, I think, are the same way as me. At least those in my age group.
Last edited:
To follow-up on what others have already posted. The linked paper is basically a University undergraduate term-paper. It hasn't been peer reviewed and the author makes no claim to it having been published in any reputable medical or scientific journal.coccinelle said:
It therefore has just as much validity as a website that claims that Income Taxes are unconstitutional, and no one need pay them.
it is not serious research... it is a pseudo-scientific paper
In fact this is exactly the point... it is not serious research.
Siting allot of research to indicate your agenda is not serious research.
So when I expressed that I thought as a ``research paper`` if graded by a professor it would prove to be worthless I was saying I was sure it was an illegitimate work based on it`s own poor quality of content and suspect context. Not because it was written by a student, but because it was written badly! Or worse it was written not as a legitimate ``research paper`` but a poor attempt to put forward a shaky perspective as a solid perspective.... as metoo4 called it a pseudo-scientific paper.
Read metoo4`s post below, I think it answers well what I was thinking.
Wrong!coccinelle said:
In fact this is exactly the point... it is not serious research.
Siting allot of research to indicate your agenda is not serious research.
So when I expressed that I thought as a ``research paper`` if graded by a professor it would prove to be worthless I was saying I was sure it was an illegitimate work based on it`s own poor quality of content and suspect context. Not because it was written by a student, but because it was written badly! Or worse it was written not as a legitimate ``research paper`` but a poor attempt to put forward a shaky perspective as a solid perspective.... as metoo4 called it a pseudo-scientific paper.
Read metoo4`s post below, I think it answers well what I was thinking.
metoo4 said:
Question:coccinelle said:
Of all the people who have died in commercial plane crashes in the last year, how many of them do you think, believed that the choice to fly that day was a choice to take a very risky chance and how many of them do you think wanted to go down in a plane crash?
My question points out that the reversed logic of being scared away from something with such infinitesimal risk is tremendously foolish when compared to the things actually known to be a definite risk that everyone does every day.
Is commercial air travel a great risk... no, but it is a known risk. It is good logic that keeps people flying because we know it is not rational to believe it is too risky to fly.
No one has ever been solidly proven to have contracted hiv/aids from natural (uncovered) oral sex on the penis, never!
Many have won the lotto twice and many have been hit by lightning twice, but no one has ever been solidly proven to have contacted hiv/aids from natural (uncovered) oral sex on the penis!
Interesting also ...
This one ain`t exactly the same topic but some informations are related ...
https://merb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=14566
I`m still waiting for the funniest reply for the second question !!!
This one ain`t exactly the same topic but some informations are related ...
https://merb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=14566
I`m still waiting for the funniest reply for the second question !!!
Similar threads
