STD Risk Calculator
- Thread starter The Fox
- Start date
To answer your question, yes, it's quite low.
The reason we talk a lot about stats that come from studies involving gay men, is because the prevalence of HIV is higher for gay men. In other words, about 20% of gay men have HIV, and about 1% of straight men have HIV. Statistics change a bit from city to city.
If you only studied heterosexual men, you wouldn't have enough of them that were infected with HIV, so you wouldn't see many transmissions at all. Then your study wouldn't be useful. Mouth-on-penis is the same behavior, so the outcomes of the studies are still valid for heterosexuals.
I read a review published about 10 years ago on oral transmission of HIV. That review references the Vittinghoff study. Actually, if you go to page 3 of this thread, and look at the images I posted, you can see the results of that study, I highlighted them with red.
STD Risk Calculator lists these studies on their references for how they do the oral sex HIV transmission figures
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20543603
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19179227
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20543603
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19179227
Well pre 2010, the general claim was that unprotected oral was about 1/7 as dangerous as unprotected anal. The virus cannot tell if the mouth involved was a man's or a woman's.
Oh I lied
not oral. Fellatio. The other oral is not the same odds. Lower?Well pre 2010, the general claim was that unprotected oral was about 1/7 as dangerous as unprotected anal. The virus cannot tell if the mouth involved was a man's or a woman's.
Oh I lied
I have no access to the actual paper from here, but given it was 2010, once can I think assume that it was relatively predictive
. 1/5 to 1/10 th as dangerous as vaginal / anal is probably realistic. Given apples to apples comparison of with and without condoms.I think that that range pretty well covers most of the real studies, do you disagree?
Well pre 2010, the general claim was that unprotected oral was about 1/7 as dangerous as unprotected anal. The virus cannot tell if the mouth involved was a man's or a woman's.
Oh I lied
In the case of HIV DATY is much safer. Only one recorded and documented case that I ever heard about.
However not any safer for many other diseases.
Yes, I have heard many doctors use phrases like "no risk" or "theoretical risk only" with DATY. If there was profuse vaginal bleeding or discharge (perhaps associated with menses) and you were giving oral and had cuts in your mouth... *maybe*, but that's stretching a lot...
Yeah, there's lots of good content in there, not aware of any really good recent studiesI have no access to the actual paper from here, but given it was 2010, once can I think assume that it was relatively predictive
I think that that range pretty well covers most of the real studies, do you disagree?
ok, I thought you were disagreeing with me bc otherwise why post something to back up my argument. yes heterosexual women can carry it which is why I dont have unprotected sex with strange women and dont advocate it. HOWEVER, even if say you have hundreds of unprotected sex encounters with hundreds of average women who don't use IV drugs, you wouldnt even need to get an hiv test. 1 in 10 000 heterosexual people carry HIV and if you are unlucky enough to fuck one your odds of getting HIV are about 1 in 1000. if one of those women happened to fuck a BI guy with hiv their odds of getting it are 1 in 1000
In a quick reality check, in 2008 for US:
NEW cases of HIV for MSM men was 26,700 (95% CI: 23,400–30,000).
New cases for heterosexual infection in women was 9,800 (95% CI: 8,200–11,400)
So for every 3 new MSM case there was 1 new heterosexual woman.
So a wee bit more than 'can'
If anyone cares enough, they can look at the 2011 figures. Oh as a rule of thumb often Canada's number can be estimated to be 10% of the US. But of course the 30% ratio would not change.
Yes. The menses would contain blood cells from systemic circulation, which would include CD4+ T-cells.
Saliva is fairly effective at neutralizing the HIV virus which is why all forms of oral transmission have very low risks. Yes in theory if you have a cut in your mouth and you are giving a blowjob you could get infected. In the link I provided up thread in a study of >300 gay men who engaged exclusively in oral sex there wasn't a single instance of transmission, and the study authors therefore concluded that the risk of transmission has an UPPER BOUND rate of 1 chance in 2500, and it is most likely a smaller chance than that.
So now let's bring this back to the thread topic and introduce a little reality.
Here is the scenario: A female escort provides a blow job to a male client and then has protected vaginal sex. The risks to both parties of contracting HIV here are negligible.
First, you are dealing with two individuals who are both highly unlikely to be infected AND serum positive. Even just ignoring the transmission rates, the rates of infection in these populations are so low that the risks are small to begin with. Yes, there is HIV in the hetrosexual community, but it is a low rate. Moreover, the only rate that matters are those who aren't receiving treatment for HIV, which lowers it even further from just the rate of frequency in the population.
Second, the guy has almost no risk here. HIV may transmit to someone who gets a load of cum in their mouth, but it doesn't go the other direction easily--the rates are low even for vaginal sex, and for oral sex, where saliva has already inactivated most of the virus present, the odds are just incredibly low unless the woman is bleeding profusely from her gums or something.
Third, the transmission rate to the woman is low, even if the guy is infected--less than 1 in 2500 odds of that happening, assuming that he is infected AND does't know (if he knows odds are he's being treated--effectively).
And here's the kicker: Because this is essentially a one-way risk situation, from the guy to the SP, the fact that the SP sees lots of clients does not actually increase the risk at all because SHE IS NOT A VECTOR. She may wind up infected if she is fantastically unlucky, but unless she is also having unprotected vaginal or anal sex, she isn't passing it back on to anyone else. So transmission from one client of the SP, through the SP, to another client, is incredibly unlikely. This has the effect of lowering the risk to the SP as well since she isn't exposed to other SP's through her clients.
The result of all this is basically there are a whole lot of other things that are a much bigger worry in this situation. There are a whole host of non-sexual diseases which anyway would transmit well enough in this scenario, and they are all bigger risks--including bigger risks of death. You are more likely to contract influenza in this scenario, and then die from it, than you are likely to contract HIV.
And finally let's just end on a common sense note: If this was in fact a major transmission vector for HIV then a whole hell of a lot of hetrosexual people would be infected, becuase I guarantee you that pretty much everybody is having oral sex with everybody else these days, socially, and in the case of SP's and their clients, professionally. It's just so common, even for people who practice safe sex with a condom otherwise. And, we just don't see that--there are just not that many HIV positive hetrosexuals who aren't exposed to some other risk factor like injection drugs or bisexual behavior in them or in a partner they have unprotected vaginal/anal sex with.
Interesting. I never read a paper testing for it. I have read something about the Zimbabwe maid who laced the porridge with menstrual blood resulting in it being tested and not containing any live virus.
Oh well, best be safe and not sorry.
WOW you must be informed by some magical means.
Pretty much everyone says there were about 1,148,200 people living with HIV in US. With a population of 308,745,538 that means 1/300
I wonder where they went wrong in their math.re how women get infected "New HIV infections among women are primarily attributed to heterosexual contact (84% in 2010) or injection drug
use (16% in 2010). CDC statistic sheets.
re how many women have it: 24% of the people with HIV are women (US 2009 -CDC Statistic fact sheets)
do you have any peer reviewed papers that support this one way hypothesis?
And lets remember the basic question did not focus on HIV, nor did it even focus on STIs that could not be cured. It was a simple statement. "BBBJ = 5 to 6% chance of being infected" and the basic response from some people who seem to have at least a little medical training is "Sounds about right". Those who want to have BBBJs insist it is a very minute chance.
Since you guys live in Canada you have a right to believe what ever you want. And since it is the 21st century you can probably find something on the Internet that supports your belief.
On the bright side I refuse to believe I can contract influenza from a washed penis.
As long as it is nothing to sneeze at (Joke)WOW you didn't even read my post and sure wrote a lot that graphically looks like it is a reply to what I said, but in reality is completely irrelevant.
Yes there are lots of people with HIV, but they are mostly homosexuals and injection drug users. Really. There are indeed some HIV positive heterosexuals, but many, many fewer. The odds that your hetrosexual partner has HIV are very low, unless your partner is also an injection drug user, or a bisexual male.
Yes, women can get infected from hetrosexual contact--but it is almost always unprotected anal or vaginal sex, whereas we were talking about blowjobs.
So maybe re-read my post, that you quoted, and reply again, having read it.
Yes there are lots of people with HIV, but they are mostly homosexuals and injection drug users. Really. There are indeed some HIV positive heterosexuals, but many, many fewer. The odds that your hetrosexual partner has HIV are very low, unless your partner is also an injection drug user, or a bisexual male.
Yes, women can get infected from hetrosexual contact--but it is almost always unprotected anal or vaginal sex, whereas we were talking about blowjobs.
So maybe re-read my post, that you quoted, and reply again, having read it.
those heterosexual women in those figures are basically all IV drug users. also, many women from high risk areas in africa and other high risk areas who immigrate to north america make up some of those heterosexual women as well. like I said fuck hundreds of women bareback who live low risk lifestyles, and you dont need an hiv test period. every person ive seen who has HIV, they look the part, they look high risk.....they don't look like your average soccer mom.In a quick reality check, in 2008 for US:
NEW cases of HIV for MSM men was 26,700 (95% CI: 23,400–30,000).
New cases for heterosexual infection in women was 9,800 (95% CI: 8,200–11,400)
So for every 3 new MSM case there was 1 new heterosexual woman.
So a wee bit more than 'can'
If anyone cares enough, they can look at the 2011 figures. Oh as a rule of thumb often Canada's number can be estimated to be 10% of the US. But of course the 30% ratio would not change.
WTF, WTF, WTF??! Why, why, WHY would anyone do such a thing??! That's disgusting..
