Sexually Transmitted Disease (std) Talk

I see, I got your point, right now what I need to get is peace state of mind and your post helps me to achieve that, and I assume the risk in the oral like cunningulus is more lower isn't it?

The risk of what? Wwanderer was specifically addressing HIV, and pointing out that the risk of contracting that from any sexual activity, unless it involves blood, is ridiculously low and has been blown up for political reasons.
 
The risk of what? Wwanderer was specifically addressing HIV, and pointing out that the risk of contracting that from any sexual activity, unless it involves blood, is ridiculously low and has been blown up for political reasons.

Sorry for being unclear yes the risk of HIV from what I heard it's also possible from the vaginal fluid but the risk is so low unless I have undergo mouth surgery before. And sorry what do you mean about political reason?
 
Yes, the vaginal fluid and other bodily fluids of an HIV infected female may contain low concentrations of the " living"/active virus (but not for long) which could infect you in principle if somehow introduced into your bloodstream. Theoretically the virus could even be "airborne", i.e, you could get it from inhaling the aerosol droplets produced by an infected person's sneeze or cough, but it is unlikely that this has ever happened even once in the real world.

There was a brief period in the early characterization of the virus during which it appeared possible that it was of a type which can easily mutate into a highly contagious airborne form. A few seriously alarmed researchers had to contemplate the potential for extinction of our species until this possibility was excluded by further data.

-Ww
 
Last edited:
Sorry for being unclear yes the risk of HIV from what I heard it's also possible from the vaginal fluid but the risk is so low unless I have undergo mouth surgery before. And sorry what do you mean about political reason?

The political aspect is that the relation between the HIV problem and homosexual and intravenous drug activities is seen as "politically incorrect" by the media and politicians, so there is an ongoing drive to present HIV as a "mainstream" disease, which it clearly is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenDalton
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21062593/

I found one interesting link incase there are another people who is afraid of getting HIV, as been said before by another member as long as you stay heterosexual (sorry,no offense to the homosexual people), don't use drug it'll be safe, and it should be even safer if you use condom
 
Sigh... I promised to shut up about this, but please note: I never said "purely safe". Meiji brought up the concept of "100% safe" himself. This is called a "strawman argument" in discussions.

I simply said that nama honban has always been considered beyond the red line, with everybody in the scene I ever talked to. And I was gobsmacked to read that some people here nonchalantly call nama honban a "sexual preference". Well, maybe times have changed. Not for the better, apparently.

I agree. I was shocked too  to read that some here view it as a sexual preference. To me it is just stupidity.   I come from a medical background and the honban practitioners are on borrowed time.


[Moved here because STD talk belongs here -- Meiji]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We are, of course, all on borrowed time in any case, but if there is any even semi-reliable data of unprotected heterosexual activity making a significant impact on people's life expectancy in a First World country, I'd be very interested to see it.

To the best of my knowledge, it never happened...although it was widely expected by public health experts and officials at one time.

-Ww
 
  • Like
Reactions: dreams
Yes, Ww, thanks for stating the obvious. Some people needs to be reminded that myths and realities are not the same.
Unless your partner is drug addict, risks to your "life" by having unprotected vaginal intercourse are nil. STds, yes but this you may get with BBBj as easily as with vaginal sex, or even simple sumata...
To each his own, I fully understand someone who wants to have exclusively covered sex, Bj as well, because they do not wnat he risk to catch an STd, and more, to take the risk to infect thaeir regular partner. For the others, don't judge based on myths.
 
The chances of contracting an HIV infection via oral sex are *very* low because the virus is an extremely fragile one, takes virtually nothing to kill/deactivate it once it is outside of an infected person's body/blood. If it were not so fragile, it would be an enormously bigger health problem. Moreover, your mouth is naturally (i.e., by your immune system) well "defended" against infectious agents for obvious biological/evolutionary reasons.

However, not all STD agents are as easily repelled as HIV, and catching some of them via oral sex with an infected partner (especially an infected male partner) is far more likely than contracting HIV that way. Here is a non-technical article that covers the topic in a bit of detail and reasonably objectively imo:

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/19/how_risky_is_oral_sex/

-Ww
 
Last edited:
Fwiiw, imo a key issue in considerations of STD risks is the degree of risk from one type of behavior relative to that from others. A very large majority of people are notoriously irrational in this regard. In other words they worry about and take measures to protect themselves from one kind of risk, typically one that they find emotionally scary or disturbing, while totally ignoring much greater dangers of other kinds, typically those associated with familiar routine activities.

For example, it could easily be that the danger of being injured or killed in a fall during the almost compulsory showering/bathing, before and after, parts of a standard Japanese p4p encounter are much greater than any risks posed by STDs even if you go the BB route! To be clear, I don't know if this is actually true and have no data to back it up; it is just a speculation/guess meant to illustrate what I mean by "irrational" in the previous paragraph. But it is quite plausible imo.

-Ww
 
Why do people change topics? "Dreams" claimed that bareback homban is equal to sumata. That is clearly a myth created by our barebacking community, in order to justify their "preference".

HIV, I thought, had been discussed and dealt with.
 
Why do people change topics?

Because this is the net! Or, as Forrest Gump said, "Thread drift happens." :D

"Dreams" claimed that bareback homban is equal to sumata. That is clearly a myth created by our barebacking community, in order to justify their "preference".

Fwiiw, I don't believe that homban and sumata are even remotely equally risky, except perhaps in the qualitative sense that both are so safe that you can ignore the risks without consequences in most cases.

But I also totally don't get why the BB "community" (scare-quotes because it really isn't a community in any ordinary sense of the word, as far as I am aware) would want to make up such a thing or how it would justify their personal choices in STD risk tolerance.

-Ww
 
That, I don´t believe. It sounds like a myth concocted by the barebacking community.
I stick to my guns: there are more cases of STD caught by BBBJs than vaginal sex. Why: maybe some scientific reasons as explained by Wv, but also by the fact that most punters believe that it is safer to accept BBBjs rather than BBFS. As a consequence, there are far many more instances of BBBjs than BBfs..

Z, you talk about the "barebacking communauty". What's that? Have you ever met their memebers? They have a constitution? A President? lobbyist?

Come on, be serious, and let's discuss this as adults rather that throwing stupide statements like that at each others..
My argument, and you are welcome to disagree, is that people who are OK with BBBjs and offended by BBFS are just missing the point,. At the best they are fooling themselves, or worst, have other agendas...
 
Because this is the net! Or, as Forrest Gump said, "Thread drift happens." :D



Fwiiw, I don't believe that homban and sumata are even remotely equally risky, except perhaps in the qualitative sense that both are so safe that you can ignore the risks without consequences in most cases.
Yes, I agree with that , and what I meant is well expressed in the second part of the quote.
 
(This post may at first appear to be changing the subject of discussion, but read on. It isn't.)

Here's a statistic I find rather shocking, or at least quite surprising: Your chance of accidental death in a single airline flight is roughly 10 times higher if you fly on one of the airlines with a below median safety record than if it is one above with an above median record. In other words, the safer half of airlines are 10x safer than the less safe half.

http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

However, very few flyers, even those who fly A LOT (and I know *many* such people), pay even the slightest attention to airline safety records and, if asked, would have no idea whether their next flight is operated by an airline in the safer or less safe part of the industry. The reason is that in both halves of the airline industry the risk is so small (1 in 2 million vs 1 in 20 million) that it is sensible and practical to simply ignore it.

This is the sense in which one might say that say that different BB activities are equivalent even though one might be *relatively* much riskier than the other.

-Ww
 
Not to derail the subject but, has any one here contracted a disease from one of the escorts?
 
Last edited:
I would never do fs bareback , out of fear of warts. I've only done the full on escorting thing once though, and i even insisted on cbj, so I don't have the experience to judge anyone.


At the same time, I do think I can contribute when discussing risk of HIV.

For all you hetero guys ( and even to a lesser extent gals,) HIV risk has been greatly inflated. In my opinion in the U. S. at least you have two forces- elements from the left and the anti- promiscuity elements of the right, joining hands in a massive psychological cockblock of disinformation.

I say this because I spent a year doing mercenary work in Malawi and learned just how much my generation had been lied to about aids. Malawi is a country truly ravaged by HIV/aids. At one poiny i slipped and fell on a rathet large pool of blood On the floor. Later on when I realized how much got on me i got worried. The docs wouldn't even test me. They said that the vast majority of people with HIV /aids in Africa have a number of other health conditions that make them ripe for infection and illness. One of them chuckled at the idea of my getting tested. There were two instances of actual needle stick and neither of those employees were infected. I had a test back home two years later and was negative. The patient whose blood got on me later died from tb.


I'm saying all this to calm anyone who reads this while dealing with fear nevause of a broken condom. Ive bever gad a broken condom. Never had an infectious disease, and ive pulled security in the most horrific conditions concievable. You can get a lot of stds. No denying that, but if you are not injecting drugs, not having unprotected anal sex, and don't have a Rural Malawian level immune system, you are ok as far as HIV/aids. I say this just because I feel like American cultures paranoia kind of trivializes HIV/aids- guys getting tested because a condom broke during vaginal intercourse.theu need to be tested for the clap, syphillis, etc. Aids does in fact discriminate- it preys on the abused and marginalized. Let's save the resources for the folks actually at risk.

Just my thoughts


HIV is very hard to catch by healthy people, even if they go "bareback", if they are practicing proper hygiene. Simply taking a shower before and especially after sex will massively reduce risk. Soap and water kills HIV. The virus has a very poor ability to survive outside the body and poor ability to infect. In fact silicone (safe with condoms) based lubricants and certain oil based lubricants (not safe with condoms) are thought to also inhibit the possibility of HIV transmission by creating a barrier to the cells (minus even the condom). And your odds of catching HIV if your partner doesn't have it is ZERO. But people are afraid of each other and to get tested.

With unprotected vaginal sex, many studies have the odds calculated as 1 out of 1,000 or more of catching HIV (IF you have sex with an infected person), and unprotected anal sex at 1 out of 200 (for the receiver and the giver is even less(1 out of 1,000) and that is without the additional measure of taking a shower after sex or to include a shower before and after.

Toronto Study of unprotected HIV risk has these stats (odds calculated based on being EXPOSED 10,000 TIMES (which is amazing by itself)):

Blood transfusion: 90% (Obvious danger, but blood is screened for HIV now)
Needle-sharing injection or drug use: 0.67% (most dangerous route of transmission)
Receptive anal intercourse: 0.5%
Percutaneous needle stick: 0.3%
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse: 0.1%
Insertive anal intercourse: 0.065%
Receptive oral intercourse: 0.05%
Insertive oral intercourse: 0.005%

Furthermore, odds of encountering HIV infected people in Asia, and particularly Japan is far less than in Africa, India, Thailand, or the USA. Even with that stated, the strains of HIV that exist in Northeast Asia are considered less virulent than those in other places.

For Africa, India, Thailand, etc... A large contributor to HIV infection is poor hygiene, poor health, and a range of other diseases that they may be infected with. Even in the case of HIV infection, if the individual maintains their health (and debatably are on anti-HIV medications), they may live with the infection for over 20 years or even live out a normal life span and not get AIDS. The change from HIV infection to AIDS is considered to be based on overall health, other diseases, and other factors that still have not been fully understood yet (which is amazing considering how long the problem has existed).

In no way am I'm downplaying the importance of condoms (which are NOT 100% fail-proof by the way). But I agree with GoldenDalton that various special interest groups (both left and right) have perpetuated mass hysteria about HIV versus logic and education. Furthermore, you are vastly more likely of catching and dying from Hepatitis C than HIV/AIDS. In Asia, you are 3X more likely to die of Hepatitis C than HIV, yet people are virtually clueless about this fact. They tremble at the word HIV, but not Hepatitis C. Amazing, and again, that is thanks to the snow jobs done by special interest groups perpetuating fear for political and social gain.
 
Last edited:
The chances of contracting an HIV infection via oral sex are *very* low because the virus is an extremely fragile one, takes virtually nothing to kill/deactivate it once it is outside of an infected person's body/blood. If it were not so fragile, it would be an enormously bigger health problem. Moreover, your mouth is naturally (i.e., by your immune system) well "defended" against infectious agents for obvious biological/evolutionary reasons.

However, not all STD agents are as easily repelled as HIV, and catching some of them via oral sex with an infected partner (especially an infected male partner) is far more likely than contracting HIV that way. Here is a non-technical article that covers the topic in a bit of detail and reasonably objectively imo:

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/19/how_risky_is_oral_sex/

-Ww

1) Saliva in your mouth kills HIV.
2) HIV is not transmitted by saliva

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9989543

This was known way back in the 90s, if not before. It was these factors that led to the study of anti-HIV gels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wwanderer
Furthermore, you are vastly more likely of catching and dying from Hepatitis C than HIV/AIDS. In Asia, you are 3X more likely to die of Hepatitis C than HIV, yet people are virtually clueless about this fact. They tremble at the word HIV, but not Hepatitis C.

It is absolutely astonishing to me how often this sort of thing is true - namely people fearing and taking measures to protect themselves from (sometimes at/with great expense, inconvenience, negative side effects etc) risks that are totally unimportant compared to other risks they are completely ignoring. It seems to be more often the case than not actually. Radiation from Fukushima is an example of recent experience in Japan. But there are endless others.

Psychologists have studied the effect and understand some things about how/why people are so demonstrably irrational about something as (biologically) important as dangers to their lives and health, but it remains somewhat mysterious.

Another psychological aspect of the phenomenon that has been studied some is that most people are quite defensive about their risk-related beliefs/behaviors and tend to become hyper-skeptical and even hostile towards good news (and its bearers) about risks that they consider to be serious ones.

-Ww
 
Hey, sorry to butt in, but I desire some knowledge.

In a drunken stupor last night I found myself in one of those skeezy apartments that an old Chinese woman lead me to. A girl sucked me off bareback and we had sex, but with a condom.

I realize I'm probably fine, but what's the word on how clean the girls at these sorts of places are?
 
Hey, sorry to butt in, but I desire some knowledge.

In a drunken stupor last night I found myself in one of those skeezy apartments that an old Chinese woman lead me to. A girl sucked me off bareback and we had sex, but with a condom.

I realize I'm probably fine, but what's the word on how clean the girls at these sorts of places are?

If you are that paranoid:

1. Why go there?

2. Why not only get with STD tested girlfriends?

3. Why not get STD tested?

Mathematically, you are not likely to get something from only oral sex or when using a condom. However, nothing in this world is perfectly safe.
 
Like I said, druken stupor! But yeah, getting tested will be on my agenda.
 
I realize I'm probably fine, but what's the word on how clean the girls at these sorts of places are?

If it is a typical Chinese massaji with "saigo made" deal, then she took you to a shower and thouroughly cleaned your schlong and her nice bits, did she not? Plus made you gargle with iodine solution? That is standard procedure in these places. Compared to what goes on in the backstreets (and back seats) in some Western cities, I say they are extremely clean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TokyoJoeblow
A huge element of sex is trust versus risk. I can see a guy taking chances with women they trust, women of a high reputation, and/or they have established a continual relationship with her. Because there is some accountability. You can go back to that woman and say "Hey you are giving guys an STD." She will care, and it will not be a situation of where some Yakuza thugs throw you out on the street and tell you never to come back or she hangs up the phone on you.

Also the relationship with her is such, that she does care and has concern about you, in addition to her own health and reputation.

But I have an extremely hard time understanding guys rolling the dice with women they don't know and in very questionable circumstances.

I have transplanted this discussion to this thread for the obvious reasons.

To the best of my understanding, those who routinely elect to have unprotected oral sex in p4p situations with women they don't know at all and have no reason to trust is that the risk of transmission is so very low. In the case of HIV you could have unprotected oral sex hundreds of times with an infected partner and run only a small chance of catching it. If it is only once or a few times, the risk is small enough to ignore in the judgement of many guys.

In other words, it has nothing to do with trust or the woman's reputation. Rather they are just playing the odds, just as essentially all of us do when we, say, get in a taxi and put our lives in the hands of a total stranger whose ability to drive safely we have no specific (to that driver) reason to trust. It *could* be a fatal mistake, but we know that the risks of travel by taxi are *tolerably* low in general without having to know anything about that specific driver. I've even heard that some people don't bother to put on their seat belts! :D

-Ww