What's that smell?

[whipped guy]

RE: Knowledge...

 

It is a classic human foible that individuals cast out of their minds what they do not want to know about themselves or their behavior. Consequently, I can’t even begin to express how disturbing and distressing this thread has been. It surely has to be one of the most significant dialogues that have transpired on this site in quite some time. Hopefully it has resulted in some deep soul searching, behavior changes and a desire to search out accurate, precise, and up-to-date information, data and statistics.

 

There is absolutely no substitute for seeking out the truth and subsequently then being well informed… Along those lines many posters have given their sincere thoughts on this subject… some have proved to be more accurate than others, but most have been genuine… and for that we should all be grateful. It will certainly help direct all of us down a path that will lead us to a more rewarding and more fruitful existence.

 

Thank you all, and let us continue along these lines…

[+ Tom Isern]

As I said I would, I dropped my friend an email. While he doesn't want his identity revealed, I don't think he would mind me sharing the email itself:

 

****************************************

 

Please do not name me.

 

But the stats are readily findable thru google….and the relevant one is that the insertive anal sex partner has 0.06% chance of seroconverting per episode of unprotected sex with an infected bottom, versus the 0.04% risk for the partner who sucks an infected top. Much riskier of course for the anal bottom being fucked by a pos top (who cums).

 

******************************************

 

I did the Google search he suggests and the relevant stats did pop right up. For anyone who wants to check them out, here's a link:

 

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=ask-01-01-05

 

I quote from the page:

 

The estimated per-contact risk of acquiring HIV from unprotected receptive anal sex (URA) was 0.82 percent (95% confidence interval: 0.24, 2.76 percent) when the partner was known to be HIV+...

 

The per-contact risk associated with unprotected insertive anal and receptive oral sex with HIV-positive or unknown serostatus partners was 0.06 and 0.04 percent, respectively.

 

Oral sex without a condom

Person sucking 0.04 percent

 

In fairness to the discussion in this thread, I should also add that the page does state: "Such per-contact figures should never be used to calculate individual risk." This is what my friend fundamentally disagrees with. He's thinking about an op-ed for the NY Times on the subject. If he does it, I will share it.

[twinkboylover28]

>Your friend is correct, though, when he states that the

>message of using condoms 100% of the time has not worked.

>Witness the original poster in this thread.

 

 

It's "fairytale theatre" if you believe unporotected sex doesn't happen frequeuntly in society. Why would yo ube "appalled" to hear about it. We are all human and make mistakes. Let's not all pull the wool over our eyes.

 

Most of the resposnes and comments on this board are exactly why people pretend they "never" have unprotected sex... and also part of the reason they don't get tested because they want to avoid being personally attacked (such as I have been on this board).

 

I'm confident many more readers would have posted some of their real life experiences, which would have benefited all of us, but chose not to for fear they also would be personnaly attacked, minimized, ridiculed, or diminished in some other way.

 

We should be able to discuss sensitive topics in an educational, scientific, and sincere way without trashing the individual.

 

 

 

 

 

When I started

>reading this thread, I immediately thought it was a joke where

>someone was trying to post something that would end up with a

>warning about AIDS risks. When I realized he was describing a

>real encounter, I was bit appalled.

 

 

 

 

Why were you appalled? I'm glad I had the courage and honesty to post a real life event in a public forum.

 

 

 

 

 

>

>You ask if we can "discuss this incident frankly and without

>the heavy-handed moralism and flame throwing?" That would be

>good, I guess. However, I believe that this even-handed

>approach has sometimes given people a kind of

>get-out-of-jail-free card in terms of moral decision making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Society could judge the "morality" of homosexuality as well if you like?

 

 

 

 

>If the original poster had carried a loaded pistol that

>contained one bullet and started firing it at his partner, we

>would all (I think) condemn this activity.

 

 

 

Oh please! You cant compare one "60 second encounter" of unprotected sex to russian roullette. That's like mixing apples and oranges. I didn't murder anyone.

 

 

 

 

Yet we are hearing

>some calls for quiet discussion in the face of another very

>real risk to his and his partner's health -- a risk that he

>inflicted on both of them just as surely as if he had pulled

>the trigger of a loaded pistol.

 

 

 

 

 

A little gay drama there..wouldnt you say? Let's not exaggerate please.

You're making it sound like what I and many other young people have done is as bad as rape or kill someone. It was bad judgment.

 

 

 

 

 

>

>He is concerned for his own well-being. That's

>understandable.

 

 

 

 

Obviously everyone is concerned for themselves. I dont see herds of people rushing to Detroit to help out the poor.

 

 

 

 

 

But I'd like to kindly suggest that he should

>be feeling significant concern for the health of his partner

>as well.

 

 

 

 

 

Make sure you drop a quarter to your local homeless person in Montreal next tine you visit the clubs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

>>How does he know that he himself is not HIV+?

 

 

 

I stated I was negative. I'm also not having sex for 3 months and then I will get tested on 9/9/2006. If im negative on 9/9/2006 and dont have any std's on that date, then i will consider myself lucky.... and disease free.

 

 

 

 

How

>often does he engage in unsafe activities?

 

 

 

I'm 32. In my lifetime I've probably had about 10 instances of unprotected anal sex. I've always had unprotected oral ...which amounts to around 25 instances. Now please kindly go ahead and use the preceeding sentence to trash me and personally attack me.

 

If everyone were as forthcoming and honest, Im sure i would compare LOW on the "totum pole" compared to many other "upstanding citizens" in our "100% always safe" gay community. As a wise man once said..if everyones face in church would turn BLUE if they were a homosexual, a lot of people would be shocked. The same is tree if we could see everyones TRUE "litmus test" of past personal sexual encounters.

 

Let he throw the first stone....

 

 

 

 

When was the last

>time he was tested?

 

 

 

 

As I said, May 2006.

 

 

 

 

I don't really care about the answer to

>these questions in the direct case but I think it's important

>for people to understand that they themselves pose a real risk

>to their partners when they engage in unsafe sex.

 

 

 

 

I was negative when I fucked him.

 

 

 

 

>

>Finally, I guess, there is the issue of being turned off and

>frightened by the sight of shit on one's dick. The message

>here is that shit is more dangerous somehow that what might

>otherwise be lingering inside someone... sort of like it's ok

>if you fuck someone without a condemn so long as you avoid the

>brown stuff. This betrays a lack of understanding of how

>STD's and other diseases are transmitted. It seems as if the

>OP believes that as long as the other person is somehow

>"clean" inside then things will be ok. While that might be a

>nice theory, it doesn't really have anything to do with real

>health risks.

 

 

 

 

 

This I agree with you 100% !!

 

I was naive in believing that if i didnt SEE "shit" or "blood" after fucking unprotected.. that i would somehow be safe. i honestly believed that...AND i honestly beleived that if i washed my dick in soap and water immediately after sex that that would reduce the risk of std transmission.

 

Thank you for setting me straight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many guys believe that rimming someone is ok so

>long as it "looks clean" down there. But rimming is, in fact,

>an activity associated with a high risk of transmission for

>certain diseases. Anyone who thinks that someone who looks

>clean is disease free really needs to do himself a favor and

>read up on the real health risks associated with various forms

>of sexual activity. Otherwise, they are playing a real game

>of Russian Roulette with their own health and, quite possibly,

>that of their partners.

 

 

 

 

 

If I have "Hep A" and "Hep B" vaccines, then in theory.. would'nt I be able to eat as much ass as i wanted?

 

In my lifetime the only std's i have ever had were: lice in my pubic hair (the first time i ever had sex), Urinary Tract Infection/NGU, and pharyngal gonoreah while performing oral....all of which have been 100% cured.

 

What other diseases could make me sick from eating ass? <-----I'm fully aware many on this board will also use the preceeding statemnt to attack my intelligence and personal life.

[twinkboylover28]

RE: Twinkboy's Adventures

 

>Another fascinating story from twinkboylover. It reminded me

>of a post he made last year (May 13) where he recounted

>another unsafe encounter he had had:

 

 

 

 

LOL

 

This is the second time you've dug up that story for us Lucky. You do a great job and remind me (very much) of ME!... and my style of fact finding. Congratulations! You're hired

 

I think you would prefer the story of the "white film" on a Toronto twink escort's asshole which I talked about in graphic detail around August of 2004. Much more entertaining.

[twinkboylover28]

RE: See What Happens When...

 

>I'm kind of disappointed that some of the positive aspects of

>this post have been ignored.

 

 

 

Thank you One Finger for your comments

[twinkboylover28]

RE: What's that smell? Guilt, low self-esteem? Probably.

 

>"Thanks for the personal

>attack."

>

>Maybe I'm blind, but I didn't see anyone's name included in my

>"Too many losers, too much time" post. Is it not possible that

>the shit-burstin' escort could have been the reason for my

>comment?

>

>Anyone who gets defensive over a comment when no one's name

>was never mentioned gets defensive for a reason. I have no

>control over the reason and nor do I have any control over how

>a man feels about himself.

>

>Therapy anyone?

 

 

 

HAHA! I'd love some therapy if you're offering. Maybe everyone on the board can chip in so I can get the much-needed valuable treatment I so desperately need so i wont be the dispicable gay citizen I've turned out to be.

 

 

But honestly, your original comment was ambigious and you cant blame me for assuming it was directed at me considering ALL THE OTHER NASTY COMMENTS people have hurled m yway.

 

ps- i feel great about myself

[twinkboylover28]

RE: Steven Draker recommends safer sex

 

>

>We all make decisions about where our risk tolerance lies the

>minute we crawl into bed with someone. The only 100% safe

>sexual behavior is abstinence--that is the hard truth.

>

>Honest and frank discussion is always better than hype and

>moral condemnation.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMEN!

[twinkboylover28]

RE: Steven Draker recommends safer sex

 

>Thank you, Tom, I'm fully aware of these

>risks. Rereading your statistics you minimize the risk to the

>point that it looks like you top without a condom. Please

>confirm that I'm wrong

 

 

 

 

Jesus, Mary mother of God he doesnt have to fucking confirm his private sex life to anyone. OMFG! Are you the sex police?

 

 

 

 

 

 

>>Honest and frank discussion is always better than hype and

>moral condemnation.

>

>You're right. Unfortunately, my trust in

>honesty died the day a barebacking escort came on this very

>board to preach for safe sex. Hypocrisy turns me off.

 

 

 

 

 

Gee, I wonder why he would feel uncomfortable being honest with you?

[+ Tom Isern]

RE: See What Happens When...

 

Hey twinkboylover28...

 

You have given those who like to rush into situations like this and pose, supposedly showing off their moral superiority, a perfect opportunity. Unfortunately, it has been demonstrated over and over that moral condemnation does not change behavior. Some of the posts have been heated and irrational. Try not to respond in kind.

 

You are not without sympathetic respondents on this thread. Let's try to keep the discussion rational and cool--maybe others will follow our lead. There should be room on this message board for people like you to discuss the mistakes they've made and seek guidance and information without the circus of high moral crowing and posturing.

[twinkboylover28]

RE: See What Happens When...

 

I agree.

[Boston Guy]

>If I have "Hep A" and "Hep B" vaccines, then in theory..

>would'nt I be able to eat as much ass as i wanted?

>

>What other diseases could make me sick? <-----I'm fully aware

>many on this board will also use the preceeding statemnt to

>attack my intelligence and personal life.

>

 

TBL:

 

It's late, it's been a long week, and I'm tired. I'll respond to your comments at more length tomorrow.

 

I agree: you are to be commended for sharing your experience openly and for seeking information.

 

Oral-anal sex is associated with known risks for:

 

Amebiasis

Cryptosporidium

Giardia

Hepatitis A

Shigella

 

It may also be associated with transmission of HPV (genital warts). It doesn't seen to be a high-risk activity for transmission of HIV.

 

Here's a chart from the City of San Francisco that shows the risks associated with various sexual activities in a clear, easy-to-read format. Many of the diseases are clickable links for further information.

 

http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/sfcityclinic/stdbasics/stdchart.asp

 

A note of caution, though: new medical studies emerge all of the time. New information can modify what is seen to be high or low risk. The best policy is to try to protect your and your partner's health at each instance. While the risk of contracting any particular disease at any particular time may seem low, they are never zero and, if you're unlucky, a single slip-up can be the one that gives you the disease you don't want.

 

Put another way, even low risks do come true from time to time. If someone said to you, I want you to push this button. It's going to fire a gun at your head. The gun can hold 200 bullets but it's only got one in it. Would you take that risk? Would you be willing to take a .05% chance with your life? If yes, would you be willing to do it a second time? How about a third or more? At what point would you say "enough is enough, I'm not doing this anymore?"

 

Some people would never push the button at all. Others -- particularly younger men -- would do it multiple times, for the thrill of it. Most would get away with it. But, from time to time, some unlucky bastard would have his head blown off with the first push of the button. Each one of us has to determine what level of risk is acceptable to us.

 

As a society, we tend to be really, really bad at understanding and estimating risks. We drive on crowded super highways (high risk) without much concern for our safety but get nervous flying in a jet airliner (low risk). We store loaded guns in our houses (statistically, a very high risk activity) on the off chance that an intruder will break in (a low risk) so we can shoot the intruder instead of being shot (high risk -- most people involved in such incidents are killed in the attempt). Many people worry about getting struck by lightening (low risk) but smoke cigarettes (high risk over a long period).

 

The chance of contracting HIV and/or other diseases is non-negligible when we participate in certain kinds of sexual activity. Unprotected anal sex is at the top of that list. Each time any person engages in it they are literally taking a chance with their and their partner's health. The question for each person is what level of risk of getting HIV do they want to accept? 1 in 100? 1 in 200? If someone is having unprotected sex once a month, 1 in 100 starts to add up and even 1 in 200 doesn't start looking so good. Three years out, the cumulative risk starts looking something like 1 in 7.

 

Anyway, this got away from me and is much longer than I expected it to be and I haven't answered any of your questions. I guess that will have to wait until tomorrow.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

Tom,

 

The study you quote is seven years old, from 1999. Yes, it's the first one that pops up when you Google it. But I do not believe that it represents the current scientific understanding of the true health risks associated with the activities in question.

 

I'm much too tired to do research now. Perhaps someone else will. Or I'll see if I have some time tomorrow.

 

The understanding of the risks involved in the transmission of HIV is a moving target as new studies emerge. Over time, some studies are discredited and the results of others simply replaced by better understanding from newer or larger studies. In this disease, seven years is almost a lifetime.

 

Good discussion, though. And thank you for taking the time to follow through.

 

BG

[twinkboylover28]

That was very eloquently said.

 

Thank you.

[+ Tom Isern]

BG,

 

I didn't notice the study date. I'm not sure what would have to change to affect those particular statistics, but agree that more recent would be better.

 

If the statistics were out of date, however, my friend would know that. I'll research more tomorrow as well...

[Guest]

>This experience has certainly shattered my enjoyment of gay

>sex.

>

That's probably not such a bad thing. You're quite the public health menace...

>

>I'm now freaking out that I will get herpes or some nasty STD.

>

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Or more precisely, a $1 condom (or you can get them free in a lot of places if you're such a cheapskate) is worth tens of thousands of medical care.

>

>I don't know if I will ever be able to eat ass or enjoy anal

>sex the same way ever again.

 

Good. Don't. Have you actually gained some wisdom from the experience? Just possibly?

[Guest]

>

>Wow. So everyone with HIV is a loser and has "little brains"

>and should stay away from you?

 

To get HIV in the last 20 years, one would need to have either a lot of bad judgment, a lot of bad luck, or, most commonly, a fair amount of both.

[twinkboylover28]

>

>>This experience has certainly shattered my enjoyment of gay

>>sex.

>>

>That's probably not such a bad thing. You're quite the public

>health menace...

>>

>>I'm now freaking out that I will get herpes or some nasty

>STD.

>>

>An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Or more

>precisely, a $1 condom (or you can get them free in a lot of

>places if you're such a cheapskate) is worth tens of thousands

>of medical care.

>>

>>I don't know if I will ever be able to eat ass or enjoy anal

>>sex the same way ever again.

>

>Good. Don't. Have you actually gained some wisdom from the

>experience? Just possibly?

 

 

 

 

Do you speak like that to all your patients...doctor?

[Guest timgetrum]

My understanding is that to become infected with HIV a live (or little damaged?), infected white blood cell from the positive person has to get into the person being infected. With drug use and blood transfusions this is easy to understand.

 

If a positive top cums in an uninfected bottom, he deposits infected white blood cells that are in his cum in the bottom. A white blood cell from the negative bottom has to consume the infected white blood cell and migrate back into the bottom. Rectal and anal tears in the bottom make this possible. One in 100? Maybe.

 

For a top to become infected by a bottom there has to be an infected white blood cell from the positive bottom in the bottom's rectum or around the bottom's anus. The infected white blood cell from the bottom must get into the negative top. This can happen if there are tears or raw areas on the top's penis. If the top is not circumcised it is easier for an infected white blood cell to get under the foreskin and be consumed by one of the top's white blood cells that is associated with a raw area. The top's white blood cell containing the infected white blood cell from the infected bottom then must migrate back into the top, infecting him. Four in 1,000? Maybe. Maybe 1 in 1,000 for circumcised? Maybe 1 in 500 for uncircumcised?

[VaHawk]

RE: Twinkboy's Adventures

 

THIS post, is just ONE of the MANY reasons that there is brown bird of prey, willing to shed a "tail feather" for LUCKY!!! :7

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: See What Happens When...

 

>

>I agree.

 

So do I.

 

And with regards to the comment that abstinance is the only true way to prevent STDs, I know that is true, but unrealistic. It's the same as saying that if I stayed home and never left the house, I wouldn't be run over by a truck.

[RockHard]

RE: What's that smell? Guilt, low self-esteem? Probably.

 

"you cant blame me for assuming it was directed at me"

 

Sure I can. If you did the assuming then the blame is yours. But I've learned not to expect much personal responsibility from men in denial.

[Barry]

>Do you speak like that to all your patients...doctor?

 

Hopefully that's exactly how he talks to his patients.

 

 

Barry

[+ Tom Isern]

RE: See What Happens When...

 

Zipperzone,

 

When I stated that abstinence is the only 100% safe sex, I wasn't saying it to promote abstinence. I was pointing out that ALL sexual activity with another human being involves a level of risk. Each time you have sex with someone, you are adopting a risk strategy whether you acknowledge it or not, whether you adopt the "official" one: condoms for all anal sex or another code of behavior.

 

Furthermore, it is my belief, and there are scientific studies to support this, that giving a bj to an HIV+ person carries an approximate level of risk to fucking as a top an HIV+ person without a condom--which is the sexual activity twinkboylover28 described in his post that started this thread. By citing the statistics, I meant to assuage his worries. The GMHC website clearly says that it is highly unlikely for a person to become infected from one incident of unsafe sex. The fact that the poster shows panic and remorse tells me that he is not the moral pariah some suggest.

 

There are some here who wish to rush into the terrain of moral judgment; they have assumed that I am promoting bareback topping. It is interesting how they don't see my skepticism of the widespread assumption that blowjobs are 100% safe.

 

Knowing the risks involved in behavior and deciding where your tollerance lies is, I believe, a good step toward responsible behavior. (Just a thought--is it really so easy to define "responsible" when every sexual act carries risk??) The GMHC website says that in black and white.

 

Knowing the risks involved and managing my behavior accordingly has kept me HIV-NEGATIVE the years I have been sexually active. (But is that even really true? I've engaged in oral sex with people whose HIV status was unknown to me...I guess luck is involved as well.) This is my problem with moral arguments--they always deconstruct themselves.

[Boston Guy]

RE: See What Happens When...

 

>Furthermore, it is my belief, and there are scientific studies

>to support this, that giving a bj to an HIV+ person carries an

>approximate level of risk to fucking as a top an HIV+ person

>without a condom--which is the sexual activity twinkboylover28

>described in his post that started this thread. By citing the

>statistics, I meant to assuage his worries. The GMHC website

>clearly says that it is highly unlikely for a person to become

>infected from one incident of unsafe sex. The fact that the

>poster shows panic and remorse tells me that he is not the

>moral pariah some suggest.

>

 

Tom:

 

I generally agree with your message about understanding risk and acting appropriately. I congratulate you on staying negative. However, I think you are doing a disservice here by continuing to state that the risk of oral sex is approximately the same as the risk associated with unprotected anal sex.

 

Why do I think this? Because if people become convinced that all of the risks are about the same then at least some will think "the hell with it, I'm not going to give up everything" and just proceed along with risky sex.

 

I will state again that I do not believe that equivalencing the risk of these activities represents current scientific understanding. You quote the GMHC website. On that website ( http://www.gmhc.org/health/testing/geffen_sti.html ) you will note a section entitled "How is it primarily transmitted?". Under HIV, you will further note that they list "unprotected anal and vaginal sex" as the first risk. Further down the list, they add "Much less effective through unprotected oral sex", meaning that HIV transmission CAN theoretically occur through oral sex but that the risk is understood today to be far less than the risk of having unprotected anal sex.

 

Checking the San Francisco Aids Foundation website ( http://www.sfaf.org/aids101/sexual.html#anal ), we find the following paragraphs:

 

[blockquote]Anal intercourse without a condom is the riskiest activity for HIV transmission. The receptive partner (or "bottom") is at risk because the anal area provides easy access to the bloodstream for HIV carried in semen. The insertive partner (or "top") is also at risk because the membranes inside the urethra can provide an entry for HIV, possibly present in blood inside the anus, into the bloodstream.

 

Using a condom from start to finish greatly reduces the risk. However, the risk is not zero because the condom could break. It is important that you understand that condoms are only effective against HIV if they are used properly and do not break[/blockquote]

 

and

 

[blockquote]Oral sex (mouth-penis, mouth-vagina) has very minimal risk for transmitting HIV as the mouth is an inhospitable environment for HIV, for several reasons. Saliva contains enzymes that break down the virus; also, the mucous membranes in the mouth are more protective than those in the anus/rectum or vagina and fluids generally don't remain in the mouth for long periods of time (they are swallowed or spit out).

 

There are, however, a few documented cases where it appears that HIV was transmitted orally. These cases are all attributed to ejaculation in the mouth (i.e., exposure to semen, not exposure to vaginal fluid or pre-seminal fluid).[/blockquote]

 

There is considerably more information available. Everyone who is possibly at risk should educate themselves about these risks. As we see when comparing the statements published today with the study you quoted from 1999, it's not good enough to simply remember what people said ten years ago. Knowledge is constantly changing and, as it does, it changes our understanding of the risks.

 

BG

[Steven_Draker]

Three Wise Monkeys

 

OK, from now on ...

 

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil !

 

http://milkfactory.typepad.com/milkfactory/see_no_evil-thumb.jpg