Aa
Oral sex,ejaculation in mouth and spitting out!
Hi! i am 28 yo gay.I don't find myself very promiscuous (had anal sex with 4 people and maybe 10-15 oral for 8-9 years)I have a partner for 2 years.I had maybe twice a year a ** adventures.But 4 months ago I went to Istanbul and I wanted to have an adventure.I was giving a ** to a guy,and he started to ejaculate in my mouth.He surprised me because I was sucking him maybe 15 second.When I felt first load on my tongue ,I started spiting it out.several times.I didn't have water beside.I went to toilet and washed it with water.I spit few times again to see if there is any blood in my mouth( I had occasionally bleeding gums,but at this perod I didn't have.I definitely wouldn't give a ** to anyone if I had!)..So, he came into my mouth with one load.I was very scared.( i generally don't like *** in my mouth,and I never let starnger to to before)I don't know his hiv status.The only think that makes me reliefed is that population of hiv+ people in Turkey is very low!I was worried some time,but I forgot about it because I read it's very low risk.But,10 days ago,I started again digging,and as much I was digging,the more concerned I became.I became very depressive and I can't eat.I only think about that.It's only because that there are very different stories.Some say that is very low risk,some say its' the same risk like vaginal intercourse,etc.And I am very confused and scared.I have a partner for 2 years and we have unprotected sex.Beside him,I didn't have anal intercouse since march 2005.Please someone help me to sleep better! Should I be concerned that much?! I want to go testing ,but have not courage now..
Receptive oral sex either with or without ejaculation does require HIV testing if the partner's HIV status is unknown. It is a well-documented way of HIV transmission. Spitting out *** lowers the risk, but does not preclude it completely. HIV prevalence statistics among general population is unreliable when it comes to risk assessment in a specific situation. In the gay community, for instance, the incidence is generally significantly higher than among heterosexual groups (although I certainly cannot vouch for it with regard to Turkey). Prevalence rate also tends to differ by geography. So, do not rely on it. The rule is simple: risky episode = HIV testing. If you want stay clear of HIV, you must use protection for receptive oral sex with partners of unknown HIV status. You will need an HIV test at 3-month after this episode to definitively exclude HIV infection.
Giving - no, I completely agree with them, receiving - yes. It is in the CDC recommendations, as it registered such presumed cases. Oral mucosal membranes are quite a fathomable gateway for the infection. I also do not buy the anti-HIV properties of saliva, as some theories suggest. Of course, I am talking about unprotected receptive oral, and the risk is still much, much lower than for anal or vaginal intercourse.
Well, then we have a rare difference of opinion, as I agree with Teak basically on almost each of his post or those that I have seen at least being an infrequent visitor here. I will post a reference to the CDC opinion of the issue that I came across the other week.
There has never been a verified documented account of HIV transmission my oral sex nor have any of the studies done on serodiscordant couples ever became infected by oral sex.
Even with ejaculation in mouth?! I am asking this again and again because I was reading different studies about that.Some experts suggest if something like this happens,to swallow better than to spit it out(?)!! I have never swallowed anyone's sperm,and especially not from the people I don't know.So,for me it was logical to spit it out.I don't have gay friends much,so I I can't ask anyone about their experiences,and what they think about it.But what I know is that lots of peole accept sperm in mouth,considering it as a low risk activity.In answers I found in internet it's
always mentioned micro cuts in mouth,gingivitis in mouth etc as a potentional risk of transmitting hiv.Well,we can all have micro cuts in mouth that we don't know for.The only my concern was mostly about that.The cut on mouth and 'invisible' bleeding gums.Do gums can bleed 'invisibly' and withouth blood in the mouth?! Now,as I started readig and reading about that,I have the image of unprotected oral sex is not that risk free as I thought! But I never heard that someone has oral sex with a condom!!! If hiv can be transmitted that way,much more people would have hiv,right?!
Anyway,sorry for this my monologue.But these are some of my thoughts about this. Iwas very scared these days( I think I lost 5 kilos with my concern )and this is the way to relief myself ,to hear other people's opinion.Thanx Serge.thanx Teak,and all the people who responds this post!
always mentioned micro cuts in mouth,gingivitis in mouth etc as a potentional risk of transmitting hiv.Well,we can all have micro cuts in mouth that we don't know for.The only my concern was mostly about that.The cut on mouth and 'invisible' bleeding gums.Do gums can bleed 'invisibly' and withouth blood in the mouth?! Now,as I started readig and reading about that,I have the image of unprotected oral sex is not that risk free as I thought! But I never heard that someone has oral sex with a condom!!! If hiv can be transmitted that way,much more people would have hiv,right?!
Anyway,sorry for this my monologue.But these are some of my thoughts about this. Iwas very scared these days( I think I lost 5 kilos with my concern )and this is the way to relief myself ,to hear other people's opinion.Thanx Serge.thanx Teak,and all the people who responds this post!
These are the references to CDC opinion re oral sex, incl. further references to research and published cases. I am aware of a Spanish study showing no cases of HIV transmission orally, but I choose to stick to the CDC opinion - as long as there's evidence that HIV transmission can occur through receptive oral sex, recommendations should be based on the principle of caution, and who knows how well the Spanish research was conducted anyway.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/pdf/oralsex.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/oralsexqa.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/pdf/oralsex.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/oralsexqa.htm
It says 7 out of 8 came in contact with pre-*** or *** so was this test just dont on receptive partners or insertive partners
the cdc bases it's guidelines on scientific "theory"...and as we all know...in theory...you can never say never. the reality is...IT JUST DOESNT HAPPEN.
as far as "documented" cases? if you were a married man...got caught with your pants down after testing positive for hiv...would you want your family and friends knowing you had unprotected anal sex with another man...or would you try and minimize the story by saying that "it was only oral sex" ? ? ?
the only way to document transmission is if we were ALL there.
as far as "documented" cases? if you were a married man...got caught with your pants down after testing positive for hiv...would you want your family and friends knowing you had unprotected anal sex with another man...or would you try and minimize the story by saying that "it was only oral sex" ? ? ?
the only way to document transmission is if we were ALL there.
Lizzie Lou, you did not even take the trouble of reading carefully these CDC documents. Or rather more likely, you approached it ....selectively weeding out what did not fit your opinion of the issue.
So, first read again: CDC in their usual professional manner draws a clear distinction between "theoretical" and "documented" risks, for that look up the rows in the table, first row - "theoretical", second - "documented" risks. Then follow up the leads in the bibliography, if you are not convinced with the CDC study outlined more details on which can be found on their site. If you are still not satisfied, I will give you a much longer list of references to research and published cases.
With regard to "if we were all there", I hope you are not serious. All data on HIV transmission is collected this way, and we have an accurate picture on HIV transmission. Why? Because there are such things as reliable research methodology and statistical interpretation of data. If you conduct multiple research according to the right methodology on a large enough sample, you get a fair picture.
To illustrate this point, you say that nobody wants to tell their family that they had anal. But the researchers had absolutely no intention of telling anything to families - CDC is not a bunch of potheads to do such stupid things, for Christ's sake, as apparently you think they are if you toss in such a poor argument. All participants names were held in confidence and never disclosed. Apart from that, some research traced contacts and did cross-examination to further verify the accounts. That's an illustration of just some aspects of professional research methodology employed by CDC and other reputable research institutions.
Finally, on a more general note, I will say this: HIV is a extremely sensitive public health issue. And the first and foremost principle for anyone who has the audacity to provide advice to general public on this issue is the principle of caution. No matter what obscure Spanish studies exist on this issue and no matter what you personally think on this, as long as there's a body of evidence that indicates receptive oral as a possible way of transmission, the consultant has no moral right to provide any other advice. We do not play checkers here, our advice has full potential to devastate one's life if an infected individual does not get tested and transmits the virus. Also, as long as that body of evidence exists, the burden of proof is on the party that claims that oral sex is risk-free, again resulting from the above principle. Until you have successfully proven so, it is one's moral obligation to follow the well-grounded CDC guidelines, whether you like them or not. That' s what I am going to continue to do.
So, first read again: CDC in their usual professional manner draws a clear distinction between "theoretical" and "documented" risks, for that look up the rows in the table, first row - "theoretical", second - "documented" risks. Then follow up the leads in the bibliography, if you are not convinced with the CDC study outlined more details on which can be found on their site. If you are still not satisfied, I will give you a much longer list of references to research and published cases.
With regard to "if we were all there", I hope you are not serious. All data on HIV transmission is collected this way, and we have an accurate picture on HIV transmission. Why? Because there are such things as reliable research methodology and statistical interpretation of data. If you conduct multiple research according to the right methodology on a large enough sample, you get a fair picture.
To illustrate this point, you say that nobody wants to tell their family that they had anal. But the researchers had absolutely no intention of telling anything to families - CDC is not a bunch of potheads to do such stupid things, for Christ's sake, as apparently you think they are if you toss in such a poor argument. All participants names were held in confidence and never disclosed. Apart from that, some research traced contacts and did cross-examination to further verify the accounts. That's an illustration of just some aspects of professional research methodology employed by CDC and other reputable research institutions.
Finally, on a more general note, I will say this: HIV is a extremely sensitive public health issue. And the first and foremost principle for anyone who has the audacity to provide advice to general public on this issue is the principle of caution. No matter what obscure Spanish studies exist on this issue and no matter what you personally think on this, as long as there's a body of evidence that indicates receptive oral as a possible way of transmission, the consultant has no moral right to provide any other advice. We do not play checkers here, our advice has full potential to devastate one's life if an infected individual does not get tested and transmits the virus. Also, as long as that body of evidence exists, the burden of proof is on the party that claims that oral sex is risk-free, again resulting from the above principle. Until you have successfully proven so, it is one's moral obligation to follow the well-grounded CDC guidelines, whether you like them or not. That' s what I am going to continue to do.
What educational background do you have in HIV? Reading the net? I can tell you for a fact that the CDC has NO verified documented cases of HIV by oral sex. All the CDC has are peer review reports which cannot be verified.
I respect Teak, and he is doing a great job here. I am just stating my opinion (or rather restating the rationale for CDC opinion), my ego is fine. As for the research, I did not say CDC research, I wrote "some research" - under that I meant Options study (R.Hecht, 2003) where out of 8 reported cases of oral transmission 2 were corraborated by partners, and, importantly, both cases were matched up by phylogenetic sequencing.
Serbguy, you should get tested, period. All sexually active people should be tested periodically, and this especially applies to men who have sex with men.
As for oral sex risks - it is a question that never dies. According to the experts at the CDC it is a risk, but everybody agrees that the risk level is so vanishingly low that it is not even worth worrying about it. A negative test result will calm you down better than anything else.
All the best!
As for oral sex risks - it is a question that never dies. According to the experts at the CDC it is a risk, but everybody agrees that the risk level is so vanishingly low that it is not even worth worrying about it. A negative test result will calm you down better than anything else.
All the best!
If I had courage to go testing,I wouldn't write on this forum desperately seeking for answers!:) But when I do it,I will go will less fear now when I got all the answers.So many different opinions,but the conclusion is basicly the same: Oral sex i s a very low risk activity! Thanx all good people who answered my problem!! And I learned a lot. I will always have a condom in a pocket in a future!:)
So basically the conclusion of this forum is recepitive oral sex transmission dosent happen or is rare and insertive never if im following right?
In my personal opinion, I think oral sex both ways is a risk that is SO low that it is not worth testing and worrying after a one time exposure. The 2 doctors on this forum have been studying HIV/AIDS since its been around and have never seen a person acquire HIV through oral sex. As for the CDC, they are ultra conservative and say oral sex is a risk because its theoretical. Just like me or you could be struck by a small meteor anytime, anywhere. Its most certainly possible but do you really think it would happen? No. And i strongly agree with what LIZZIE LOU said with people claiming that they got HIV through oral just to cover their own butts. As for courage to go get tested, i faced that problem at one point. Think of this: "At the 3 month post exposure mark, I should just get tested for my VERY low risk exposure JUST to ease my anxiety. I will NEED to know eventually, why not get it over with". Look, i'm 16 years old and gave/ received oral sex with a girl whose known to be VERY risky. After 12 weeks ( Anxiety HELL, parents not knowing, all alone in my situation), i walked 4 miles after school to get tested. After hearing the word " NEGATIVE" i almost cried and it became the best day of my life. I want you to have that feeling too if its really bothering you. And i'm not just saying this for you to feel bad for me or whatever. Good luck and live your life.
-Matt
-Matt
In my personal opinion, I think oral sex both ways is a risk that is SO low that it is not worth testing and worrying after a one time exposure. The 2 doctors on this forum have been studying HIV/AIDS since its been around and have never seen a person acquire HIV through oral sex. As for the CDC, they are ultra conservative and say oral sex is a risk because its theoretical. Just like me or you could be struck by a small meteor anytime, anywhere. Its most certainly possible but do you really think it would happen? No. And i strongly agree with what LIZZIE LOU said with people claiming that they got HIV through oral just to cover their own butts. As for courage to go get tested, i faced that problem at one point. Think of this: "At the 3 month post exposure mark, I should just get tested for my VERY low risk exposure JUST to ease my anxiety. I will NEED to know eventually, why not get it over with". Look, i'm 16 years old and gave/ received oral sex with a girl whose known to be VERY risky. After 12 weeks ( Anxiety HELL, parents not knowing, all alone in my situation), i walked 4 miles after school to get tested. After hearing the word " NEGATIVE" i almost cried and it became the best day of my life. I want you to have that feeling too if its really bothering you. And i'm not just saying this for you to feel bad for me or whatever. Good luck and live your life.
-Matt
-Matt
boxer7,thank you for your post! You are a brave young man! But in your age I didn't have sex at all:)...I think that anxiety of aids is problem for most of us on this forum,and not only 'a really risky behaviour'.We are scared,feel quilty etc.That is more a menthal stuff.And we need a word of relief and understand.I am not promiscous person ( I personally believe),but like all sinners ,had some episodes.The problem is that after all hanky pankies I had in my life ,I had the same feeling ,more or less.But this last was just last drop in the glass of water! It is something I thought I would never let anyone to do....After this,I will think twice before i have anything with some strange person.
And when I came back to this forum,I wanted to ask something I forgot.Those 'CDC studies' say that 12 men of 135 contracted HiV trough oral sex.Everybody would say that is a nonsense.I personally believe it can't be possible.If it is like that ,than every 10th person would have HIV probably.But anyway,aren't those cases those who are 'documented'?..because lots of people here say there is no documented case of oral sex transmission.On some other site,I think body.com,one doctor said that there are 24 documented cases in the world (?) Who made those documents,and who have those data (globally)
The question is for Teak and for all people I spoke about this already
And when I came back to this forum,I wanted to ask something I forgot.Those 'CDC studies' say that 12 men of 135 contracted HiV trough oral sex.Everybody would say that is a nonsense.I personally believe it can't be possible.If it is like that ,than every 10th person would have HIV probably.But anyway,aren't those cases those who are 'documented'?..because lots of people here say there is no documented case of oral sex transmission.On some other site,I think body.com,one doctor said that there are 24 documented cases in the world (?) Who made those documents,and who have those data (globally)
The question is for Teak and for all people I spoke about this already
A lot of cases is just interviews where you have people who have contracted HIV and say well I only had oral sex. So that is how they come up with that.
A study that was done had 1 negative partner and 1 positive partner, they had protected sex and unprotected oral sex. No new infections. A actual study speaks better then interviews.
If you were married man who says he is straight would you say that you had unprotected anal sex or would you say I was wondering so I tried unprotected oral sex?
Most of the well respected Dr's will say either no risk or will say very low risk. And very low is less then 1% of a risk according to them. The CDC will always be conservative, they even have a article linked on their website that talks about kissing has a possibility because one person said they got HIV from kissing. And every Dr says there is no risk with kissing.
A study that was done had 1 negative partner and 1 positive partner, they had protected sex and unprotected oral sex. No new infections. A actual study speaks better then interviews.
If you were married man who says he is straight would you say that you had unprotected anal sex or would you say I was wondering so I tried unprotected oral sex?
Most of the well respected Dr's will say either no risk or will say very low risk. And very low is less then 1% of a risk according to them. The CDC will always be conservative, they even have a article linked on their website that talks about kissing has a possibility because one person said they got HIV from kissing. And every Dr says there is no risk with kissing.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
