POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: alex1 on January 14, 2007, 09:30:02 am
-
Dear members,
Thanks for your great job.
I read the lessons and understand that you believe cunnilingus is no risk. Most of other sites though (even the ones not trying to scare) are saying that there is 1:20000 risk for HIV to transmit. Given the fact that there billions of these acts, we would have quite a few occurences of the transmission though.
Your position seems to me more defined and clear though, you are saying no risk!
Does not this happen because of the saliva blocking effect it or the difference between the vaginal and cervical fluids? Why do you think other websites still maintain their position?
I had an unprotected cunnilingus a year ago and had no symptoms or worries, but came accross some articles mentioning some potential risks and became worried.
Also re the symptoms - and i know your view on this in general....Why some sites say "most people don't have any" and some say that about 80-90% do have some? What is your view?
I beleived that the fact that i had no symptoms was almost definite that i did not catch it, but with this different info, i get concerned a bit. I had a normal sex life with my wife for the last 1 year and she did not have any symptoms either during this period!
Thanks a lot - great job you do guys! This virus made many people maniacal i guess
-
Alex, we can't account for what other websites put out. We simply give out here what is responsible, well-grounded information to the best of our ability, based on science and experience.
Is cunnilingus a risk for HIV transmission? Yes, but only theoretically. There have yet to be documented cases in this manner. Given what a common act it is sexually, we would have known long before today if it was more than a theoretical risk. Not only does the giver's saliva create a barrier to HIV transmission, the female fluid most likely to carry HIV, (IF the woman is HIV positive), is in the cervical area. You'd need a very unusually long tongue to penetrate to the cervix to even create a possible risk.
I can't help wondering if you were already married when this incident happened. If you were, then I'm also guessing that your undue concern is really about some guilt related to the incident. If that is so, do yourself, your wife and your life a big favor and take a deep breath and let it go. Burdening yourself with this unwarranted concern is no love tribute to your wife nor a testament to your higher character. Get on with your life.
With regard to that incident, HIV is not an issue for you.
Really.
-
Thanks Andy,
Of course you are right and i realize that most of my worries are because of guilt and would not happen otherwise.
Just for my education - could you please give your view on the second question i had regarding the symptoms statistics and how frequently this happend that one have absolutely no early symptoms if infected
Thanks
-
I didn't have any symptoms ever.
-
I see RapidRod,
And what is your view on the subject if you don't mind.
Ann, can you give you view as well please...
-
If you would have read the transmission thread you would know. Some have illnesses that land them in the hospital, some have illnesses that is like the flu, other don't have any symptoms or so mild they don't even notice.
-
Alex,
If you know this website well enough to know who to ask for by name - to the extent of PMing the three of us - I would imagine that you've already read enough threads to know our views on cunnilingus.
Going down on a woman is not a risk for hiv infection. It's a combination of the protective properties of saliva and the fact that it's the fluids that are found deep within the vagina, on the cervix, that are infectious, not the lubricating fluids that originate in two glands on either side of the vaginal opening. It is very difficult to become infected with hiv through the mouth. Even taking the ejaculate of an hiv positive man into your mouth is unlikely to result in infection.
As for the stats on symptoms, most of the time these kinds of stats are pretty much pulled out of thin air. You cannot accurately apply general population stats to individual cases anyway, whether the stats are accurate or not.
You can test if you like if that's what it takes to put this incident behind you, but don't be surprised by a negative result.
Ann
-
Thanks RapidRod,
I actually was asking about your opinion on a risk from cunnilingus.
BTW, can anyone one point me to some data about the fact that vaginal fluids do not contain HIV and only difficult to reach cervical fluids do - i think this piece of data is crucial in understanding why the risk seems to be low
-
Alex,
All of the studies I've read only talk about the cervico-vaginal fluids being infectious. This is the protective mucus film covering the cervix. The fluid that comes from the vaginal glands aren't really much different than tears or sweat and while these fluids can contain hiv in small quantities, they are by no means infectious. I can't link you to the studies I read because they are on a subscription only NHS (UK medical system) website.
The anti-viral properties of saliva also play a very big part.
My experience here tells me that it isn't going to matter what we say to you or what you read elsewhere. Go test, collect your negative result and move on. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding or in this case, the testing.
Going down on a woman is not a risk for hiv infection. I'm so confident in that statement that I allow my partner to do this... he is hiv negative and we have been together for over seven years. I don't say or recommend anything in this forum that I don't practice in my own life.
Ann
-
Thanks Ann!
Very helpful - all the best!
-
Sorry for bothering you guys again, but i cant help wondering still:
1. Andy, you say no documented cases of transmission by cunnilingus, but why you dismiss these 2-3 cases reported to CDC - any reasons?
2. Ann, you saying it is no risk to go down on women, but is it right only if there is no menstrual blood involved? otherwise it seems to be even more dangerous then giving a blowjob as exposure to blood is more dangerous then exposure to semen - right. And i am sure there are cases when blood in involved in cunnilingus, still no risk?
3. if saliva indeed blocks the virus, why there are cases of transmission by giving a blowjob?
Many thanks - hope this questions are helpful to many...
-
alex,
1. There is a difference between "reported" cases and "documented" cases. In a documented case, the mode of transmission has been proven. In the cases you talk about, there were other factors in each one that came to light afterwards that discounted the claims of the patient to be infected through cunnilingus.
2. The whole menstrual blood thing is theoretical. Menstrual blood isn't quite the same as fresh blood from a cut. You would be very unlikely to be infected this way.
3. There aren't all that many cases of transmission from giving a blowjob that have been proven. There may be many reported cases, but often times people will not or cannot (because of memory loss due to drink/drugs intake) admit to more risky behaviours. In the cases where it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, there are usually mitigating factors such as terrible oral health.
There have been long-term studies of couples where one is positive and one is negative. In the couples who used condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, but no barrier for oral activities, not one of the negative partners became infected with hiv. Not one. This shows us two things. One, condoms are very effective for the prevention of hiv transmission. Two, oral sex (giving a blowjob) is much lower risk than previously believed. We now have the evidence that oral sex is a very, VERY low risk activity where hiv transmission is concerned.
Once again, if you cannot accept what we have told you, go test and prove it to yourself. As I said to you before, I don't think you are going to be able to let this rest until you do. Go collect your negative result and move on with your life.
Ann
-
If all say that oral transmission is so difficult to happen and so rare, how then babies are infected by breastfeeding - this is happenning orally as well!
Any insights?
-
Now come on, you are talking about two different scenarios. When you start sucking clits 5-6 times a day, 7 days a week for 6 months. You let us know and we'll see if we can get you in Ripley's Believe It or Not.
-
Alex,
For a start, breastfeeding is not a guarantee for infection. Also, babies who are breastfed are ingesting large quantities of hiv infected milk - that is ALL they live on for the first few months. We are talking about newborns here and newborns are fragile and susceptible to infections anyway.
There is absolutely no connections or correlations between breastfeeding an infant and adult oral sex. They are two entirely different kettles of fish.
One more time - you have not had a risk of hiv infection through going down on a woman. If you cannot accept that, go get tested and put your mind at rest. However, you will not be allowed for much longer to use this site to continually question your no risk situation. Read the Welcome thread again and take note of our forum posting guidelines.
Please consider yourself warned.
Ann
-
Thanks Ann,
This answer makes sense.
Just to let you know that i did accept your opinion and feel much better with my situation- i just thougt it was an interesting question to clarify as these situations could be perceived somewhat similar because of the oral route of transmission.
Thanks again
-
Hi,
Just wanted to share an info i found on the Australian Federation of AIDS organizations website re oral sex on women:
Oral sex and women
Licking or sucking the vagina, or vaginal lips is very safe in terms of HIV. There is very little HIV in a woman’s vaginal juices, and saliva damages the virus. Dental dams are not necessary for protection against HIV but may help prevent the transmission of other sexually transmissible infections like herpes. http://www.afao.org.au/view_articles.asp?pxs=84&pxa=ve&id=413&pxc=sec_clo
it is interesting to see that some official websites take less conservative approach on this subject and go beyond common "low risk but be careful" approach!