Risk of HIV from receptive fellatio ... - TheBody.com's Bulletin Boards

After getting myself involved in a possible HIV exposure through receptive (giving) fellatio, I resarched the net like mad to get an idea of the risk I put myself under. I have gotten my conclusive 12-week ELISA (negative), but continue to resarch the risks - not out of fear (I am passed the fear. I am negative), but out of a need to help people out that had a similar exposure to mine.

Please remember, that I am hardly an expert. This is just my simple opinion on oral sex based on the (rather brief) research I have conducted. If someone with more knowledge than me were to give their thoughts on what I am about to say, that would be great.

Here we go.

It is certain that receptive fellatio carries a theoretical risk of HIV transmission - but so does getting hit by a meteor, and you don't worry about that do you? It is also reasonable to assume that other factors such a deep-throating, ejaculation, and canker cores in the giver's gums could theoretically increase the already theoretical risk, but I have yet to find I study which regognises these things as factors. Is there one?

Some will argue that despite receptive fellatio always being low risk, it is still a REAL risk, meaning that there are actual documented cases of people being infected with HIV by this manner, but I believe that such evidence is always unreliable because:

Personal claims of transmission are probably the most unrealiable indicator - what if they're lying? What if they're too ashamed to admit they had a higher risk activity? What if they were under the influence of drugs, and had forgotten about a possible higher risk activity?

It would obviously be too much of a generalisation to say that EVERY gay guy that claims to have gotten HIV through oral, is lying. But I do think that it is fair to say that the MAJORITY would. Of course we can never have evidence for this, but you just have to look at human nature.

So what about the few people that are probably telling the truth? No one can be sure, but maybe they were suffering from a severe lack of oral hygene, and has simultainously gargled the cum of an HIV infected person with a high viral load. I maybe they had good oral hygene and refused to take cum in the mouth, but had had hundreds (if thousands) of oral enocounters (I think that too much of even the safest sexual practise can be dangerous).

The above what-if scenarios also make nearly every controlled study on the possibilities of oral sex transmission unrelaible, as they too, used data from personal testimonies alone. Even if you have trouble believing what I'm saying, can you really call HIV risk figures for recpetive fellatio as much as 5 -7%, relliable? Think of all the billions blowjobs that have been given during the HIV outbreak!

Some studies such as Romero et al. give more reliable data based on the risk of oral sex. By selecting magnetic couples and having them practise unprotected oral sex exclusively, with protected vaginal and anal sex as well. I beleive the study has lasted more than 10 years, and there was no a single case of HIV tranmission out of an estimated thousends upon thousends of blowjobs. Surely such a study is more reliable!

I am not saying that you should therefore, practise oral sex all the time because it is 100& safe. Nothing is really. I just think it would be fair to say that unprotected receptive fellatio without ejaculation would be very similar in terms of risk to insertive cunnilingus if both the receivers were HIV positive. I think that if both their status was unknown, the risk of fellatio would become greater, not because of the physical possibility of HIV entering the bloodstream, but simply because there is a much greater chance that a gay man would be infected over a straight women (In the UK, 20.3% of homosexuals are infected). The risk, however, is still very, very, very low.

So in conclusion, in my humble unproffesional opinion. The risk of recpetive fellatio is certainly low (moslty theoretical) risk behaviour, and the studies that suggest people do sometimes get infected by this manner could be interpreted as unreliable. It is up to you whether to trust them or not.

So what does everyone think? Any comments?

Post Extras: Remind Me!