July 06, 2003
I have deleted yesterday's post about spitting vs. swallowing, name-calling, and my assignation yesterday morning because the comments led me to believe that the post shared so much information as to embarrass both its readers and its author.
However, I do want to point something out, for the benefit of those who left comments about the relative safety of letting somebody come in your mouth. While it's true that there is some disagreement about how safe unprotected receptive oral sex is, the consensus from all parties seems to be that it's significantly safer than protected receptive anal sex, because of condom breakage, slippage, etc. Letting somebody fuck your ass while wearing a condom is, in other words, two to three times more dangerous than letting somebody come in your mouth. So to participate in the former but refrain from the latter seems to me to be letting sensationalism rather than science dictate your behavior.
Of course, in my case, both sensationalism and science take a back seat to neurosis and paranoia, but I have to assume there are some people out there for whom this is not the case.
(The CDC Collaborative HIV Seroincidence Study is pretty clear about the numbers involved, and here is a more recent document that discusses in detail the risk of HIV transmission through oral sex, with a comparison at the end to other sexual practices, including protected receptive anal sex. One passage in particular details the relative safety of a range of behaviors: "You know, the principles on individual risk reduction have always been to move people along toward a safer part of the spectrum. So to move them from unprotected receptive anal, to receptive anal with a condom, to insertive, to insertive anal with a condom, to receptive oral with ejaculation, and if I was dealing on an individual level with a patient whose primary risk behavior was oral sex with exposure to ejaculate, I would counsel that individual to try to reduce their exposure to ejaculate.")
Posted by Faustus, MD at 09:27 AM
TrackBack Pings (TrackBack URL for this entry: copy me!)
Comments
1) Dan said (on 07/ 6/03 at 10:06 AM):
actually I really don´t get this theory about unsafe oral against safe anal...but since I am not on the receptive end...maybe I shouldn´t care anyway.
Stay safe and sober!
d
2) Dan said (on 07/ 6/03 at 10:10 AM):
Sorry Faustus, but does my memory betray me (since the discussed post is deleted), didn´t you participate in both anal and oral with the married guy...what makes this whole theory totally senseless....no offense, you know I adore you dear! that´s why I actually want this blog to last a bit longer....
3) Faustus, M.D. said (on 07/ 6/03 at 10:21 AM):
Dan, my point isn't that what I did yesterday was 100% safe; it's that it was no less safe than what manyÂif not mostÂof my readers do. People who are alarmed by the idea of unprotected receptive oral sex but don't think twice about protected receptive anal sex are basing their behavior on an incomplete understanding of the facts. A couple people (not you) who've never said a thing about protected anal sex I've discussed commented disapprovingly about the unprotected oral sex mentioned in yesterday's post, and I just wanted to point out that, scientifically speaking, that makes no sense.
In other words, if you're willing to get fucked in the ass with a condom, then refusing to suck somebody off without one isn't going to do you any good. So all I'm saying is that those of us who do the former shouldn't raise an eyebrow at those of us who do the latter.
4) Dan said (on 07/ 6/03 at 01:36 PM):
totally to the point as always, faustus!
or is it on the point...?
I feel so stupid now. Will you give me some language training ;)
5) Choire said (on 07/11/03 at 03:22 PM):
Kick that science.
Post a comment
Powered by Movable Type 3.2