I SWALLOW. DO YOU?

[Guest jizzdepapi]

and no i don't mean my pride. this has cum up several times for discussion but i don't remember people weighing in.

 

as a former member of ACT-UP, our public stance was always that, of course, unprotected anal (& vaginal-YUCK) fucking is deadly. we always called swallowing "low-risk" but most of us actually thought it was no risk.

 

i have swallowed for the past twenty-two years and have not contracted AIDS and, only once, an STD.

 

would love to hear others' practices and experiences.

please weigh in on this,

jizz

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

My understanding from my primary care physician, an infectious disease specialist, is that swallowing cum is not low risk. He advised that it is one of a few circumstances that, should it happen, I should see him immeidately and start a month-long regimen of anti HIV drugs as a precaution. He wasn't kidding...

 

Between you and me I think he may be gay and he is cute. :-) I plan to pop the question soon... 'Is he gay?'

 

:-)

[Bilbo]

I not only highly suggest mint flavored condoms, I don't even cum inside of anyone in a condom and haven't in years. When I used to explain that to my clients, more of them were relieved than all other reactions put together. And I am not the only one who has eroticized for myself the sight of my partner coming. Many men, and even a good bit of written porn anymore, make a big thing out of having a man put a hot load of cum on their chests. After all, the movies have been doing it that way for years, and a lot of men learn how to have good sex from the movies. (Though personally, I like it even more when mine lands on another man's package.) ((And now I can't help wondering if I'm not being too graphic and cruising for being put back on moderation.))

[guyinsf]

I don't think that most doctors or AIDS educators consider swallowing cum "low risk." It is probably "moderate risk." I would think that most people would consider sucking cock without taking cum in one's mouth is low risk (for HIV transmission, anyway), but of course there are those who are convinced otherwise, based on a limited number of people who seroconverted and have *claimed* to have not engaged in any other risky activity.

[Guest skywalker]

based on a limited number of people who seroconverted and have *claimed* to have not engaged in any other risky activity.

 

What does "seroconverting" mean?

Thanks.

 

skywalker

[trilingual]

Ditto. Except when I've just had my teeth cleaned and scraped, or had the occasional mouth sore or irritation of the gums, I have sucked and swallowed throughout the entire hateful epidemic. I continue to be negative, and have had no STD's. I really think the odds are about the same as of winning the Lotto! In other words, in the great scheme of things it's low risk. Which, of course, doesn't mean NO risk, so each of us has to assess what level of risk we're willing to take and go from there. In my own case, for example, I've never been very anally oriented, but on the few occasions when I've re-lost my virginity it was always with condoms because I have no doubt that receptive anal sex is high risk and I'm not willing to accept that chance.

[Barry]

Seroconverted = an individual has converted from HIV- to HIV+ based on a blood test. The virus is present and detectable.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

" Many men, and even a good bit of written porn anymore, make a big thing out of having a man put a hot load of cum on their chests.'

 

Works for me... BIG TIME!!

[Traveller]

And I thought I did massive quantities of drugs. You must be out of your fucking mind. Then again, is one of your hobbies Russian roulette? 22 years. Will you make 30? Sorry, but I've been involved with a lot of ASOs over the years, and this just ain't kosher.

 

Later.

[vers7]

For the record I choose to have oral sex without a condom, but choose not to have ejaculate in my mouth. On a related note, I think that this thread is interesting -- not necessarily with regard to the issue of swallowing -- but as to what level of risk we have rationally (hopefully, rationally) decided to live with. Thusfar, all seem to agree that unprotected anal sex (top or bottom) is unacceptable. Some of my friends believe that having sex with escorts is an unacceptable risk. However, other than monogamy with a tested partner, all sex has risks and is a tough personal call.

[+ deej]

It's a personal choice. I do engage in oral sex without a condom, but I haven't swallowed in 20 years. I realize it's a trade-off of safety over pleasure and that's where I, personally, have drawn the line. I don't miss the taste that much! ;-)

[Guest icon513]

Yes, I swallow, and have been doing so for 18 years with no ill effect whatsoever. And some of that spunk I now know to have been HIV+. I have many friends who also swallow regularly, and none of them has seroconverted, either.

 

I'm not saying that it's impossible to become infected this way, but I completely believe that it is very, very unlikely. So unlikely, in fact, that I have decided there are better things to worry about.

 

Otherwise, not only would a ton more people be positive, but the demographics would be completely different from what they are in actuality (take away the hemophiliacs, IV drug users and the unprotected anal and vaginal sex recipients -- both male and female -- and you just don't have that many people left. If jizz in the mouth were a major risk, half the women in America would be HIV+).

 

I'm not trying to evangelize here, so please don't flame me!

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

No, mixing meat and dairy, in this case cream, definitely ain't Kosher. Maybe that is the source??????

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

[b'"Some of my friends believe that having sex with escorts is an unacceptable risk. "[/b]

 

I'm much more comfortable with the escorts I've seen than with the available anonymous sex partner what with barebacking and STDs. The escorts have been clean, informed, and seemingly concerned about their own health at least, more so than my impression of many in the cruise bars and clubs.

 

This strikes me as just one more double standard in the gay community -- another: looking down on escorts or those who employ them. WIth all the pressure be in a relationship and with the amount of 'cheating' that goes on -- viewed as standard acceptable practice by many if not most -- how do we manage to misplace values in the community?????

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

When did SEROCONVERTED become an acceptable euphemism for INFECTED !! Let's call a spade a spade. It represents, to me, a dangerous and/or flip attitude and about a dangerous and not-so-flip subject. Using the euphemism seems to lend support or at least acquiescence to the concept that it is not such a big deal. Pardon my intolerance showing a little. :-(

[Guest TFNH]

Though deadly, HIV is actually also a pretty fragile virus, dying almost instantly when exposed to air. This could explain why it appears to be tough to transmit orally, and so easy to transmit anally(from semen to minute fissures up the giggy)or through blood exchange. All this of course is speculative.

 

It does surprise me how many escorts do swallow; any information on their infection rate?

[Guest jizzdepapi]

a question for those who don't swallow but do suck without a condom: isn't the risk of getting the HIV/AIDS virus from swallowing precum as great as that of getting it from swallowing semen?

 

for the record, i don't believe either is moderate- or high-risk but i also would not try to convince anyone who believed otherwise.

 

jizz

[Guest jizzdepapi]

actually, TY, the term "seroconvert" was coined by doctors researching the pathogenesis of the HIV/AIDS virus. they have used it for a long time to describe certain mutations of the virus and have assigned no affirmative or perjorative value to it's use.

 

you certainly have an strong opinion about safer sex practices which i respect but the term above is not commonly or professionally used to mitigate the seriousness of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

"I'm not saying that it's impossible to become infected this way, but I completely believe that it is very, very unlikely."

 

David Brudnoy -- Boston Radio Talk Host -- Gay, AIDS, not into anal -- practiced only oral sex by his own words. He has a strong opinion on the subject of HIV risk with oral sex and ejaculation.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

jizz,

 

>actually, TY, the term "seroconvert" was

>coined by doctors researching the

>pathogenesis of the HIV/AIDS virus.

>they have used it for

>a long time to describe

>certain mutations of the virus

>and have assigned no affirmative

>or perjorative value to it's

>use.

>

 

I appreciate the info, I was unaware of it. I have no problem with its use for viral mutation, clearly 'infected' is not an appropriate term for that. I think though that people do not potentially 'mutate' from unsafe sex...

 

>you certainly have an strong opinion

>about safer sex practices which

>i respect

 

Surpsringly I don't think my views are stronger than most... if two consenting people wish to engage knowingly in a practice... well this will open a big discussion of responsibility to society etc. that I don't want to get into here. I see two sides to the coin. And I do not see oral sex with ejaculation as nearly as high a risk as unprotected anal sex.

 

But I do take a dim view of dressing things up in euphimisms that seem undue and inappropriate, and I conclude that it serves some purpose other than clarity of communication, either that or an ill-considered fad of language IMHO. I know this is just my view and others may differ, but it is as I see it. While I sign on the the use of various words to convey differences in escorts, hookers, etc. where I believe shadings exist, I see no shades of HIV infection. I see no benefit to misusing a $5 word that conveys mutation as a replacement for the accurate word infection. Does this make sense on any level?

 

> but the term

>above is not commonly or

>professionally used to mitigate the

>seriousness of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

>

 

Then the reason for its misuse eludes me.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

As I understand it from my physician the answer is no -- precum is a lower risk than semen. They have different sources in the body and semen is highly contaminated with the virus, precum much less so. And infection probability is directly related to viral load.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

This was intended as a response to vers7 -- sorry for the misplacement.

[+ Charlie]

I think there is a basic misconception behind this question: it is not a matter of swallowing or not, but of taking it in the mouth or not. There is probably a higher risk of absorbing the virus in semen through sores in the mouth, bleeding gums, etc., than through the digestive tract, where acid is likely to kill it quickly. That said, the risk is still more theoretical than practical, although infection undoubtedly could happen occasionally in this way.

 

I used to work on an AIDS hotline where we had a regular caller who was obsessed with the possibility of getting infected by fingering an HIV+ woman; he was worried because he had a hangnail. Obviously the level of acceptable risk is different for each of us.

[Guest 7Zach]

And probably the volume also.

BTW, my doctor, who is gay, told me the same thing as the other poster, i.e., if I did swallow or have ejaculate in my mouth, and thought he might be positive, to start on a drug therapy immediately for approximately a month to 6 weeks. This info is about a year old, and the advice may have changed in the last 3 months or so, when papers were presented recommending waiting on the anti-viral treatments, rather than starting immediately.

For the record, never swallow, never have in mouth; I always thought it was at best a moderate risk to high risk to swallow...

I have read and informed by my doctor that the percentages of contacting the virus through oral sex are low, 2% on average, but this was then thought to be around 7% with papers presented on the subject about a year ago. Evidently there is dissension in the ranks of the exact percentage, but two points:

2% each time u have sex increases with each contact, so although it's still 2% per time, with multiple partners, the 2% rate goes up. Same as flipping a coin, 50% heads each time, but if flip 100 times, the percentage to get heads each time is way lower than 50%.

Additionally, my doctor, who practices only on gays, has had several patients who became infected and who swore, as probably have others, that the only contact was oral sex. He knew it was true of one couple, where one partner was paraplegic and became infected. That said, the key is if the people are telling the truth, and I just believe that some of them are; I just don't believe that all of them are lying, especially in view of the fact that now that they're positive, I would hope that some would want to tell the truth just as a matter of adding evidence that is helpful to a better understanding of the disease.

Clearly, I thought the issue as pointed out of infected and/or bleeding gums increases the chance of infection, as does deep throating (the back of the mouth for some reasons provides a "hook" for the virus to attach to - can't explain more cuz requires me to use scientific terms and can't -, but who knows?

[Barry]

Jizz I do think the term "seroconvert" is still commonly used to mean the detection (through serum testing) of the antibody produced as an immune response to a specific bacterial or viral antigen. In this case, HIV.

 

With HIV the HIV ELISA test is used on blood and if positive the more accurate Western Blot test is used to confirm the presence of specific antibodies to the HIV antigen.

 

If both tests are positive the patient is advised that they are HIV+. I think that's what we are talking about here.