Her's an idea---why don't you stop having recreational sex if you're so concerned about it. Condoms don't prevent anything, they just lower you're chances. Anyone that's so bent should be preaching abstinence!
Printable View
Her's an idea---why don't you stop having recreational sex if you're so concerned about it. Condoms don't prevent anything, they just lower you're chances. Anyone that's so bent should be preaching abstinence!
Like I said - I HEAR YOU... BUT you are talking about UNPROTECTED SEX.... that WASNT my question... I was talking about ORAL.... jeez..Quote:
Originally Posted by whatsupwithat
Does anyone have any information on the risks of catching HIV from ORAL ????
Jennifer
The risk is low...but people have contracted HIV through oral sex.
From the Centers for Disease Control:
Yes, it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through performing or receiving oral sex. There have been a few cases of HIV transmission from performing oral sex on a person infected with HIV. While no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is, evidence suggests that the risk is less than that of unprotected anal or vaginal sex.
If the person performing oral sex has HIV, blood from their mouth may enter the body of the person receiving oral sex through
* the lining of the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis);
* the lining of the vagina or cervix;
* the lining of the anus; or
* directly into the body through small cuts or open sores.
If the person receiving oral sex has HIV, their blood, semen (cum), pre-seminal fluid (pre-cum), or vaginal fluid may contain the virus. Cells lining the mouth of the person performing oral sex may allow HIV to enter their body.
The risk of HIV transmission increases
* if the person performing oral sex has cuts or sores around or in their mouth or throat;
* if the person receiving oral sex ejaculates in the mouth of the person performing oral sex; or
* if the person receiving oral sex has another sexually transmitted disease (STD).
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa19.htm
Thank you :O)
So, you're saying that if you have sex, why use condoms because they only lower your risk?Quote:
Originally Posted by sucka4chix
You're welcome. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer_English
Wrap That Rascal! :wink:
http://www.goodairs.com/uploaded_ima...dom-742683.jpg
No. I'm saying if you get mad at people who do oral without condoms, which you admit is low risk, you should get mad at people having sex of any kind WITH CONDOMS since that only LOWERS risk. If you're so adamant about people not becoming HIV+, then preach abstinence. Condom use won't stop it---just lets people continue to do their thing but feel less guilty about it.I'm saying that if you have sex in a union that can't produce offspring, then it's solely for enjoyment--- thus it's recreational, unfruitful, and unnecessary.Kinda half-assed to say it's ok to do this unnecessary thing that you do only to bring you enjoyment, if you lower (not eleiminate) your risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by whatsupwithat
Would you get mad at someone who used a condom, but got infected anyway, or just chock that up as unfortunate?
sorry, i think your argument is disingenious at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by sucka4chix
read below.
Despite the high rates of HIV infection that plagues the nation and the world, the federal government is looking into limiting funds for HIV prevention campaigns that say using condoms is the best way to halt the spread of the deadly virus. Such an effort sends terribly mixed messages to young people and will do nothing to combat the AIDS epidemic.
The new rules, proposed by the Centers for Disease Control, are based on legislation from an Oklahoma congressman who believes abstinence should be the center of HIV prevention campaigns, according to The Boston Globe. New campaign literature would not mention that latex condoms are "highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV," but would focus on abstinence as the best way to prevent HIV transmissions.
The naive legislative efforts do not consider reality in their funding policies. While encouraging abstinence to prevent HIV can be a good message to send to the nation's young people, discouraging condom use is not. Government officials always seem to think that authorities must pick between the two messages in prevention campaigns. In fact, encouraging abstinence while also acknowledging the high possibility that people will have sex is a smart way to reach out to populations in high risk of acquiring AIDS.
Studies from the CDC show that using condoms can reduce the chance of contracting HIV by at least 87 percent. Considering how simple it is to prevent a fatal disease, it makes little sense that the government should muddy HIV prevention efforts in an attempt to impose certain values on the entire populace.
Prioritizing abstinence may be an effective way to inspire loyalty among key conservative voting groups, but it does not justify obscuring a simple and effective message - the message that wearing condoms prevents HIV contractions. Considering how close the election is, the move to downplay the role of condoms in AIDS prevention seems to politicize the lives of people who contract HIV, just in time for November.
The CDC proposal will also require campaign literature to be approved by local public health authorities. In many towns in this country, these authorities would be too quick to censor the explicit but important information that can be found in AIDS prevention brochures.
Shifting to an abstinence-driven HIV prevention campaign only imposes a few legislators' values on everyone else. In the case of AIDS prevention, such value-driven policies are not merely annoying but dangerous.
are you some kind of born again here to get your kicks and, when you can, spread the FALSE word of the bush administration? or are you that gullible that you buy into it?
also...just an fyi...sex between people that cannot produce offspring is not just done for enjoyment...you left out intimacy, love, and everything else present in a heterosexual relationship.
I don't buy into much the Bush (or any other) administration, the CDC, forum members or media try to sell me. I look at things and draw my on conclusions. I have plenty of views on this entire topic that I'm sure would piss you and probably everyone else here off--- so I'll keep them to myself. But the fact is that sex if not done for procreation is done for recreation, that goes for heterosexuals too. Unlike you, I can accept that. Sex does not express love, you're being silly. And as a recreational activity, not much different than doing drugs (the release of endorphins), it always involves some risk. You're getting mad at people who chose to take a personal risk, when you're doing the EXACT SAME THING, you just feel better because you think your risk is lower.You're going to die, and personally I think you're gonna die the way it's planned for you to die. Some people get infected with HIV and never develope AIDS, just like some people smoke 10 packs of cigs a day and live to be 90. Why? Man doesn't know because he doesn't know everything and is not in control of everything.
I'm saying if you want to start a crusade, start one against rec. sex otherwise you're just advocating playing the odds.And you didn't answer my question: WOULD YOU BE MAD AT SOMEONE WHO CONTRACTED HIV WHILE WEARING A CONDOM? (I'll answer it for you-- NO!). It's kinda simple logic, sorta like " doctor it hurts when I do this"..."well don't do that!". If you truly don't want to catch a sexually transmitted disease, don't have sex.