Thank you joggen, that was a great informative answer....
The controversy over oral sex is from isolated case reports of men claiming to have contracted HIV from giving oral sex to other men. That is the only evidence and it is pretty flimsy at best. It is difficult to verify such claims and often times these men originally do not admit to risks that they later acknowledge.
On the other hand, there have been a number of studies in larger populations showing zero transmission of HIV through oral sex. These studies show that the risk from oral sex is too low to measure.
So, when medical experts say the risk is very low it is in this context, with the acknowledgment that such events probably do happen, but extremely rarely and below medical science's ability to measure them.
At least to me, a risk that low is zero risk for practical purposes. People have been hit by lightning on a sunny day, but nobody takes special precautions to avoid it.
Not a single person contracted HIV via oral sex alone,,, and this is true either way,, NO RISK
* Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to action by MedHelp. Conclusive negative results or a no-risk situation will be based up the criteria MedHelp’s doctors. Action will be taken as follows:
* After excessive posting, a warning will be issued by MedHelp
* Continuing to post regarding the negative result / no risk situation will result in a 3 day suspension
* Continuing to post upon your return will result in a permanent ban.
Also, is oral sex to a male (with either exposure to ejaculation or pre-ejaculate) considered no risk, or is this question directed toward cunnlingus? Thank you!
It's considered no risk at all anymore? Is that basically the consensus, it went from very low risk to no risk?
Licking cherries or sucking lollypops is always tasteful only when wrapper is taken off,,, So do take the wrapper off and enjoy,,,, no risk of HIV transmission whatsoever,,,
It is not considered a risk anymore