Babes dat say "its disgusting"then they do not know the real meaning of "MAKING LOVE"

Its the best form of geeeettting to the clouds.And of the issue of health purposes ,are u swallowing anything?mind u if ur partner sees it as "DISGUSTING",then, shld he/she be called a partner.love making does not only mean sex(the real thing)it also means gettin to know ur partner so INTIMATLY,and so if he/she finds it disgusting are u getting intimate like you should?SORRY OH if this will upset u,but dat mine opinion

Well, people enjoy it and i think the only person that can prove it has some defects is a Medical practitioner

a female can get aids from giving MouthAction (rare mode of transmission) it happens if her partners infected semen comes in contact with her blood eg from a cut in her mouth.the virus is not known to survive in saliva for long due to the ph so it has to come in contact her blood to infect her. u can definetly get gonorrhea or herpes from MouthAction.

BTW revverend,showering b/4 and after sort of makes the whole thing quite technical doesn't it?unless of course the action starts of in the shower.hmm,

One can get gonorrhea of the throat.

I think the negative aspect of it, can be real only if theres SWALLOWING, where the reverse is the case, i believe there is no health harzard.

I certainly agree that what is called "safe" or "protected" sex does go against the natural order of things; it is natural for us to want to engage in sex that involves skin-to-skin contact and the exchange of body fluids. Nonetheless, we do have to deal with the reality of HIV statistics in the San Francisco Bay area in the middle of the second decade of the epidemic (in San Francisco, an estimated 42% of men who have sex with men are positive.) Although I will focus in this article on risk factors involved in MouthAction, my underlying concern is of course safety in general and so I would first like to say something about the most well-documented and well-known risk factor for HIV transmission among gay men; eight out of ten of the new HIV infections in our study (see sidebar) most probably could have been prevented if HIV-infected precome and semen had been kept out of the men's rectums.

As a way into the discussion of risk factors associated with HIV transmission through MouthAction among men who have sex with men, I will try to answer three general questions about MouthAction and HIV commonly asked by our study participants.

1. How risky is MouthAction as compared to anal sex?

MouthAction is considered less risky for several reasons. First, the mucus membrane lining the mouth is much tougher, thicker, and more resilient than the anal canal, so it is more difficult for HIV to break through. Also, it is easier to remove infectious fluids from the mouth than from the anal canal. To remove precome or semen from the mouth after MouthAction, a person can spit out the semen precome and gargle with water, mouthwash, hydrogen peroxide, or alcohol. (We recommend spitting and/or gargling instead of swallowing, just in case the semen, precome, or penile fluids contain blood or other agents such as gonorrhea or chlamydia which can infect the throat.) Finally, recent reports in the scientific literature say that saliva in the mouth contains enzymes which can help neutralize the virus.



2. How risky is insertive MouthAction as compared to receptive MouthAction?

Receptive MouthAction or "giving a Mouth Action" is considered more risky because of the potential that more HIV-infected fluid will enter the body. When someone is giving a Mouth Action, not only is there the potential exposure to semen and precome, there is also the potential exposure to blood from a penile cut, sore, or abrasion, or even from an irritated piercing.

Furthermore, if the man receiving the Mouth Action has another infection in addition to HIV, he may have an unusually high level of HIV present in his body fluids. This is because his immune system may not be as efficient at controlling, HIV since it is also trying to contain the other virus or bacteria. An added problem is that if the additional infection is localized in the penis, then there will probably be urethra inflammation. If so, his penile fluids may contain high levels of 'infection-fighting" white blood cells, which unfortunately also contain HIV. All this could amount to increased infectiousness.

Getting a Mouth Action is considered a very low risk sexual activity. In general, if someone is getting a Mouth Action and has no cuts, scratches or sores on his penis, the possibility of his being exposed to HIV is lower. If the man giving the Mouth Action has good oral hygiene and his mouth is free of infection, then the inserter's penis is primarily being exposed only to saliva. Getting a Mouth Action might also be safer than giving one because ejaculating might flush out the virus. Urinating and washing the penis also reduce the chances of HIV infection and of additional infection.

All this notwithstanding, it is still possible that someone's penis might be exposed to blood or other HIV-infected fluids during a Mouth Action. This might occur if someone has an abrasion or scrape in his mouth which might bleed or if for example, during multiple-partner sex (group sex), he carries in his mouth the remnants of another person's penile fluids or blood from one Mouth Action to the next.

3. Is precum infectious? If so, is it as infectious as semen?

Two studies have isolated HIV from precome but the potential for HIV infection from precome is most likely minimal under normal circumstances. Exposure to precome probably poses less risk of HIV infection than exposure to semen for two reasons: it has fewer infectious particles of HIV per milliliter than semen and even if a lot of precome is discharged into the mouth during MouthAction, it is still less than the amount of semen the mouth or throat is exposed to by an ejaculation.

Now, onto the main discussion. There are two sides to the phenomenon of how supposedly "low-risk" MouthAction becomes a high-risk activity resulting in infection: the infectiousness of the HIV-positive partner, and the susceptibility of the HIV-negative partner. I would like to go through the important factors involved in each side of the general phenomenon of ncreased-risk MouthAction, and then to report our study data specifically.

There are at least five important factors involved in susceptibility to HIV infection through MouthAction.

1. A person's genetics, immune system and biological history. Some individuals may have an increased susceptibility due to these factors. Some people, for example, are prone to chronic allergies such as "hay fever." During outbreaks of these allergies, the immune system is activated. The tissue lining of the throat and nasal passage might become inflamed and therefore more permeable to HIV. Also, if someone with an allergy outbreak is constantly blowing his nose, then irritation and bleeding are more likely to occur, which might create a possible route for HIV to enter his system.

I spoke with one man who believed he became infected with HIV by getting a Mouth Action. He told me that he had a history of picking up STDs in the past from insertive MouthAction, claiming to have been infected with urethral gonorrhea this way, as well. We can speculate that either due to his genetics, immune system, or some other biological factors, he was not sufficiently resistant to STDs, including HIV, when exposed during insertive MouthAction.

2. Oral hygiene. First of all, most Americans across the board have lousy oral hygiene, so this factor may play less of a differentiating role than we might think. Nonetheless, if you have poor oral hygiene or are suffering from gingivitis, receding gums or periodontal disease, or have recently had oral surgery, you may be at increased risk since the virus may more readily find a port of entry into your body. Also, while it is advisable to brush and floss your teeth regularly for excellent oral hygiene, it is probably best not to engage in receptive MouthAction for a few hours after flossing or heavy brushing, just in case this leaves abrasions on your gums or mucus membrane.

3. Other infection. You may be at increased susceptibility to HIV if you already have another infection or if you are exposed to HIV and another infection simultaneously. This may be true whether the infection in systemic (such as hepatitis) or localized in your mouth and/or throat (such as gonorrhea or chlamydia.) The reason a systemic infection like hepatitis may increase susceptibility is that if HIV gains entry into your body, your immune system may not be able to fully focus its power against HIV, either because it may already be trying to control another infectious agent or because it may be trying to combat two new infectious agents simultaneously. The reason a localized infection such as gonorrhea or chlamydia might increase your susceptibility to HIV infection is that the tissue lining in your mouth, throat and/or nasal passage might be inflamed, irritated, or abraded by the infectious agent, and so would be an easier target for HIV.

With both systemic and localized infections, another factor which might heighten your susceptibility is the increased amount of lymphocytes in your blood. Lymphocytes are a type of white blood cell activated during infection. Unfortunately, they are also a major target for HIV infection, and it may be easier for the HIV viral particle to locate a susceptible lymphocyte during a period when they are activated due to another infection. The same principle may also apply to other infectious agents such as a cold, flu, strep, staph, as well as to nasal and throat inflammation due to chronic allergies. In general, times when you are feeling run down are times to be more careful.

4. Drug use. The most important factor of drug use is probably the effect the drug has on a person's behavior during sex. Sex on a stimulant such as cocaine, speed, or poppers is likely to be more vigorous, prolonged and intense. Sex may also be prolonged because, on certain drugs, it can take longer to reach orgasm.

Furthermore, during sex on drugs, a person may get caught up in the moment and thus may not notice the wear and tear to his penis and/or throat. He may also be able to ignore any pain that he does feel until after the sex is completed. Study participants do report that, while on speed, the heightened sexual experience and sense of well-being take precedence over everything else--including the concern about being safe.

Study participants also report that popper use makes it easier to engage in rougher or more penetrative sex such as "deep-Drinking," especially if their sex partner has a large penis. In these situations, the tissue of the throat is more likely to become irritated, especially if the sex is prolonged. Moreover, there has been scientific speculation that popper use causes a dilation of the blood vessels and thus increases the risk of HIV transmission. The biological theory is that if HIV enters the tissue during the "rush" when the mucus membrane lining the mouth and throat is engorged with blood, then the virus more easily locates a white blood cell or lymphocyte to infect. finally, some scientists also believe that certain recreational drugs, such as popper can temporarily suppress the immune system and so increase a person's susceptibility to infection if exposed.

5. Recent immunization against an infection. The immune cells of seven out of ten HIV- uninfected individuals were more easily infected in the test tube after immunization than before immunization, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) reported in a recent issue of "The New England Journal of Medicine." The immunization studied was the tetanus booster shot. During the temporary immune system activation which the immunization shot normally causes, the HIV-uninfected individual may be at increased susceptibility to HIV infection via unprotected anal or MouthAction (with an infected partner) the study suggests. This enhanced susceptibility may last for several weeks after the immunization.

The other side of increased-risk MouthAction--the infectiousness of the HIV- positive sex partner--also involves at least five factors.

1. The stage of HIV infection. Depending on the stage of HIV infection, the HIV-infected person may be a more efficient transmitter of the virus. Shortly after becoming HIV-infected, a person experiences what is called an "acute viral syndrome." During this period, the virus is very active and the person has a high viral load. Theoretically, even though he may not have obvious symptoms of HIV and may be feeling fine, the person who has just become infected with HIV may be very infectious to others during this acute viral syndrome. A person's viral load may be elevated-and he may therefore be more infectious to others--when he has a low T-cell count, a dropping T-cell count, or a diagnosis of AIDS. During these times, the virus is more active in his system, which is the reason for both his symptoms of HIV infection and his increased infectiousness.

An HIV-infected individual may also periodically be more infectious over the course of his HIV infection, due to causes that researchers do not yet completely understand (the explanation may involve a transient infection with a virus or bacteria.) Also, an individual may be less infectious if he is taking anti- viral medications such as AZT, but this has yet to be documented by a research study.

2. Infection with an additional disease. If the HIV-positive person is also infected with another disease such as hepatitis, herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia, etc. then he might be a more efficient transmitter of HIV. The concurrent infection might activate the immune system of the HIV-positive individual, which would result in more HIV replication, an increased HIV viral load, and possibly greater infectiousness.

It might be useful to return to the scenario I mentioned earlier; if an HIV positive individual also has penile gonorrhea, his urethra will be irritated and inflamed. His immune system will try to control the penile infection by sending lymphocytes to his urethra. These lymphocytes cause the pus-like discharge from the penis when a man has urethral gonorrhea. Since HIV thrives on lymphocytes, a man with urethral gonorrhea probably has more HIV present in his urethra than normal and so discharges more HIV than normal when he is getting a Mouth Action.

3. The infectivity and virulence of HIV. Some strains of HIV are more adept at breaching the immune defenses and entering a cell, and some strains are better at replicating within the cell and destroying the cell in the process.

4. Blood exposure blood is on average 100 times more concentrated with HIV than precome or semen. If a cut or tear occurs during MouthAction, the risk of exposure to blood increases. Occasionally, blood is in the precome and semen of individuals with prostate or urethral infections. I have also heard of another possibility if blood exposure oral contact with an irritated or incompletely healed penile piercing. If you or your sex partner have any penile piercings -- especially if they are new -- it is very important to makes sure they have healed completely before you consider engaging in MouthAction without a condom. It is also important to always keep the area clean and to keep an eye out for irritation after sex.

5. Recent immunization against an infection. When an HIV-infected individual is immunized, his immune system is activated and his viral load is increased, reported The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) recently in "The New England Journal of Medicine." The immunization studied was the tetanus booster shot, which was given to 13 HIV-infected volunteers. Following immunization may pose a greater risk of HIV infection (although a comparison of viral load levels in blood and concurrent viral load levels in semen was not conducted.)

While the risk of becoming HIV-infected from receptive MouthAction is still considered low under normal conditions, our study group believes these factors played an important role in the infection of five study participants who probably became HIV infected from unprotected receptive MouthAction. Four of these men come from the earlier study of 675 men, and one comes from our more recent study (see sidebar.)

As an experienced interviewer, I have no reason to doubt that the information we received from these study participants was reliable. I have personally spoken with four of these men in considerable detail, as well as with the staff member who interviewed the fifth man. Our research group always attempts to re-interview all our newly infected study participants for risk factors associated with HIV infection to make sure the information we have collected is accurate. For these five men, the risk was not low, it was 100%. MouthAction was clearly not safe sex for them.

I. The first man reported 10 episodes of unprotected receptive MouthAction with ejaculation during the time he became infected with HIV (HIV sero-converted.) He also remembered noticing that semen was in his nasal passage and sinuses after one occasion of receptive MouthAction. One partner with whom he engaged in receptive MouthAction on several occasions was known to be HIV- positive. The HIV-positive sex partner had low T-cells, symptoms of HIV infection, and he was taking AZT. The study participant usually deep-throated this partner, who he claimed had a very large penis. The participant reported using poppers routinely in association with MouthAction. His mouth was noted to have gum recession on examination both before and after his date of HIV infection. He also reported a history of periodontal disease which had been treated several years previously.

The factors that may have played a role in this new HIV infection are: 1. Sex with HIV+ partner 2. Stage of HIV infection (his sex partner had low T-Cells and probably a high viral load) 3. Drug use (he usually used poppers) 4. Oral hygiene (he had gum recession, periodontal disease). 5. Amount of HIV- infected fluid (his HIV + partner usually ejaculated in his mouth and throat) 6. Deep-Drinking a large penis.

II. The second man reported having had approximately 400 male sex partners, with whom he reported approximately 900 episodes of receptive MouthAction with ejaculation and 20 episodes of rimming during the time frame of his sero-conversion. Although he was unaware of the HIV status of most of his sex partners, one partner with whom he engaged in receptive MouthAction was known to be HIV-positive. Regardless, we can assume that approximately 42% of his 400 sex partners may have been HIV-positive, due to the estimated prevalence of HIV infection among men who have sex with men in San Francisco. This man reported the use of poppers, usually in association with MouthAction. Gum recession was noted when his mouth was examined, but his mouth was otherwise normal in appearance.

The factors which may have applied in this case are:

1 .Sex with HIV+ partner

2. Drug use (he usually used poppers)

3. Number of partners (he had receptive MouthAction with 400 partners)

4. Amount of HIV-infected fluid (he had 900 episodes of receptive MouthAction with ejaculation.

III.The third man reported several episodes of unprotected MouthAction with an HIV-positive individual during the time he sero-converted. He reported that he was infected with gonorrhea of the throat by his sex partner. The HIV-positive sex partner did not ejaculate into the mouth or throat of the study participant, but gonorrhea-infected fluids from his penis were transmitted to the throat of the study participant and these fluids probably also contained HIV. The study participant continued to engage in receptive MouthAction with this partner even after his mouth and throat became inflamed and irritated. He reported use of poppers, usually in association with MouthAction. He also reported one episode of insertive anal sex with a condom which did not break or slip during this same time period.

The factors which may have applied in this case are:

1. Sex with HIV+ partner (n.b. the participant did not know this at the time)

2. Drug use (he used poppers)

3. Oral hygiene (inflamed mouth due to gonorrhea infection)

4. Additional infection (his sex partner had urethral gonorrhea and he acquired gonorrhea of the throat; n.b. neither individual realized this at the time)

IV.The fourth man reported no receptive or insertive anal sex during the six months between his last HIV-negative test and his first HIV-positive test. Indeed, he reported no receptive anal sex since 1975. He did report one instance of protected insertive anal sex in which the condom did not break or slip with an HIV-positive sex partner, but this sexual episode -- since it was protected and occurred more than six months before his acute HIV viral syndrome -- is highly unlikely to be related to his new HIV infection. Between his last HIV-negative and first HIV-positive tests, he did report receptive MouthAction with four sex partners. Two of the four reported sex partners tested HIV- negative following the study participant's HIV seroconversion and thus were ruled out as possible sources of his HIV infection. With his third sex partner, who was known to be HIV-positive, the study participant had only protected receptive MouthAction. His fourth sex partner appears to be the most likely source of his HIV infection.

Our study participant reported 12 episodes of receptive MouthAction with this partner, 6 of which involved ejaculation and swallowing. After our study participant tested HIV-positive, his fourth sex partner, who had not known his HIV status, was HIV tested and found out that he was also HIV-positive and, subsequently, that he had a high viral load.

The study participant reported that he routinely used poppers when engaging in receptive deep-Drinking with this partner. He also reported that his sex partner had a large penis and that he did not use a condom with this man because of the tightness and discomfort it would have caused in his throat. His oral cavity was examined by a physician after his HIV sero- conversion and some gum recession was noted, but otherwise his mouth was normal in appearance. The study participant was also diagnosed with strep throat at the same time as his HIV sero-conversion syndrome. However, since our study participant last had sex with this HIV-positive partner one month before his HIV sero-conversation syndrome, our research group believes this I most likely a coincidence. Unless our participant was a strep carrier, he was probably not infected with strep throat at the same time he was having receptive MouthAction with this HIV-infected partner.

The factors that may have played a role in this new HIV infection are:

1. Sex with HIV+ partner (n.b. neither he nor his partner realized this at the time)

2. Stage of HIV infection (his partner had a high viral load)

3. Drug use (he usually used poppers)

4. Additional infection (questionable infection or exposure to strep at a time of exposure to HIV)

5. Amount of HIV-infected fluid (6 episodes of receptive MouthAction with ejaculation)

6. Oral hygiene (although gum recession was noted, it was not unusual and his mouth was otherwise normal in appearance)

7. Deep-Drinking a large penis

V. The fifth man, a participant in our HIV Vaccine Preparedness Study, reported an accident during the time he became infected, which occurred while he was having receptive MouthAction with a partner who subsequently came down with AIDS.

The HIV-infected sex partner was not circumcised. When he first thrust his penis into the study participant's mouth, a piece of foreskin was caught between the front teeth. According to the study participant, his sex partner did not realize what had happened to his foreskin because he claimed to have felt only a momentary sting when it occurred and he also claimed to have been "caught up in the act of getting head." The study participant noticed bleeding from the sex partner's torn foreskin when they finished having MouthAction and then noticed the piece of foreskin lodged between his front teeth. The study participant also reported 12 episodes of receptive MouthAction with ejaculation, protected anal sex with a reported HIV-negative sex partner, and one episode of condom breakage with a reported HIV-negative sex partners.

The factors which may have played a role in this case are:

1. Sex with HIV+ partner

2. Stage of HIV infection (his sex partner was diagnosed with AIDS less than a year after, so he probably had low T-cells and a high viral load when they had sex)

3. Blood exposure (torn foreskin with bleeding)

4. Amount of HIV-infected fluid (12 episodes of receptive MouthAction with ejaculation)

Apparently, as with these five men, the factors which I have tried to outline can accelerate the risk of MouthAction from low to high either by increasing the susceptibility of the HIV-negative partner, or by increasing the infectiousness of the HIV-positive partner.

The essential thing to remember is that life is unpredictable. We have seen many instances of factors which cannot be anticipated or assessed in advance: the partner who does not know he is HIV-positive because he has only recently become infected and, if he has ever been HIV tested, has tested negative; and the HIV-positive sex partner whose infectiousness is heightened by urethral gonorrhea; and the torn foreskin/blood exposure accident. Clearly, we can not do a complete, accurate, and error-proof risk assessment before we decide to engage in unprotected receptive MouthAction.

In short, our decision of what risks to take will necessarily be based on incomplete knowledge. So, once educated and informed, we must base our decision on ourselves as individuals.

Our research groups has conducted two major studies in the past 12 years assessing risk factors for HIV transmission among men who have sex with men. For the first, the "HIV Natural History Study" 675 HIV-negative gay or bisexual men were enrolled between 1984 and 1992 and were followed for an average of 4.5 years. These men consented to testing for HIV antibodies annually and were also interviewed and counseled regarding their sexual practices. For the second and most recent, "The HIV Vaccine Preparedness Study," ongoing since 1993, we have enrolled approximately 1,200 men who have sex with men. The participants are required to be sexually active gay or bisexual males, HIV-negative at entry, consent to HIV antibody testing every 6 months, to be interviewed at each visit about their willingness to participate in HIV vaccine trials, about their sexual behavior, drug usage, and other possible factors that might increase their risk of exposure to HIV.



This more recent study has documented 41 new cases of HIV infection, one (2.4%) of which we attribute to transmission through MouthAction. The primary risk factors reported by the 41 are as follows:



1.32 of 41 (78.0%) reported unprotected receptive anal sex as the primary risk factor. 3 out of 32 (approximately 10%) of these who reported unprotected receptive anal sex claimed that it was due to condom breakage and/or slippage.

2. 5 of 41 (12.3%) reported unprotected insertive anal sex as the primary risk factor.

3. 3 of 41 (7.3%) reported IV drug use as the primary risk factor.

4.1 of 41 (2.4%) reported receptive MouthAction as the primary risk factor.

The applicability of these data may be somewhat limited for a few reasons. First, the participants in our study may not be representative of all men who have sex with men in San Francisco, because a large percentage were recruited from bars, dance clubs, and the STD clinic, rather than by means of a community-based survey. Also, this study was not designed to look at the MouthAction issue, but at the suitability factors for enrollment in an HIV vaccine trial. Our sample size of 41 seroconverters is also fairly small.

In addition, any attempt to ascertain the proportion of HIV infections which result from MouthAction faces a fundamental difficulty. Most of our study sero- converters -- and most sero-converters in general -- engage in both anal and MouthAction. This multiple-risk activity results in a "masking effect" which makes it impossible to determine the exact percentage of new HIV infections which can be attributed to MouthAction. While the ideal study design would be to follow a group of men who report engaging in no form of penetrative sex other than MouthAction, the federal government and most public health authorities have never expressed much interest in funding or performing such a study. They believe that unprotected MouthAction plays a minor role in the overall spread of HIV in the United States. Though some researchers estimate the proportion of HIV infections due to MouthAction is probably 1% or less, other researchers claim the true percentage could be as high as 4% to 5%. And while we attribute 2.4% of the new HIV infections in our study to MouthAction, even an estimate as low as 1% would still translate into 6 or 7 new cases of HIV infection due to MouthAction each year in San Francisco alone (based on the estimate that 650 men who have sex with men become HIV-infected each year in San Francisco.)

I STUMBLED ON THESE INFO I FELT I SHOULD SHARE THEM, LETS USE OUR HEADS PLS. MouthAction is Cool, but one has to be more careful:



IS MouthAction SAFE?
by Chuck Polisher
15 September 1993


It's not surprising that people are confused about the degree of risk afforded
by MouthAction. There is lots of believable but conflicting advise being given
out. Knowing the right answer is literally a life or death item for many gay
men, and may be just as important for lesbians, bisexuals, and even straights.
But most people don't know enough about MouthAction and transmission of AIDS to
feel they're making informed choices in their sexual lives.

A wide survey of AIDS information hotlines posed the question "Is MouthAction
safe?" (See sidebar for a sample of the responses). The range of answers was
astounding, with much mis-information given out. One organization even warned
against kissing, something that most agree is an extremely low risk activity.

Text book answers: A comprehensive search of medical literature for studies of
transmission of AIDS turns up hundreds of published articles. Of those, there
are about twenty that have some hard data on MouthAction. Not surprisingly, the
published research doesn't all come to the same conclusions. Two different
kinds of reports on oral transmission of HIV emerges from the medical
literature. The first kind consists of individual case reports. These are
cases where HIV infection is reported where the presumed cause of infection
was MouthAction. Case reports of oral transmission of HIV are rare.

The second kind of research study begins by recruiting a large group of
participants, called a cohort, and studying them over a long period of time.
Members of a cohort are called in at least once a year to take an HIV antibody
test and are interviewed in detail about their sexual activities.

Over time, researchers use the data to associate specific sexual behaviors with
their relative risk of HIV transmission. It was this method that established,
early on in the AIDS epidemic, the extreme danger of anal intercourse for HIV
transmission. Large cohorts yield more reliable statistics than case reports.

First cohort
The Vancouver AIDS-Lymph-adenopathy Study, a federally funded Canadian study,
is an attempt to document the natural history of HIV. The study is a
longitudinal (cohort) study, and is unusual because it started very early
(1982, prior to the first diagnosed case of AIDS in the study area) and because
the recruiting was through general practitioners, not STD clinics, bath houses
or gay practices. A total of 746 homosexual men were studied every six months.
These factors are considered to give a very accurate and unbiased picture of
the epidemic compared to any other study of AIDS that has been attempted.

The study group was looking for evidence of oral transmission of HIV but didn't
find any. Investigators found 21 HIV-negative cohort members who had no
receptive anal sex or fisting. After almost two years of following this
sub-group, only one man had become HIV-positive. (That man practised insertive
anal intercourse in about 80% of his sexual encounters.)

Contrast this with the 99 members of the cohort who reported receptive anal
intercourse over the same period of time: 36% became HIV-positive. The
principle investigator, Dr. Martin Schechter stated: ", no risk associated
with oral sexual contact was detected." Dr. Schechter also stated that "HIV
is not transmitted orally. Perhaps, after millions of people have been
studied, one case of [oral] transmission will be brought to light. But this
does not mean that people should engage in unprotected MouthAction."

His finding generated instant controversy. Common sense said that if one
ingests an infected body fluid (semen, saliva) then they will become infected.
Dr. Schechter explained how common sense can be reconciled with the results of
his study: "Factors which determine whether infection is transmitted include
the concentration and viability of the agent within the fluid or tissue, access
to a port of entry for the fluid or medium, the presence of receptors at the
site of entry, and natural host defences near the site of entry."

While some researchers never accepted these findings, the word began to
circulate that maybe MouthAction wasn't as dangerous as many had imagined it to be.

Largest cohort
Dr. Larry Kingsley is an investigator with the Pitt Men's Study which is part
of the Multi Area Cohort Study (MACS). This is a cooperative study that
includes investigators at the University of Pennsylvania (Pittsburg), UCLA,
Howard Brown (Chicago), North Western University, and Johns Hopkins. There are
over 5,000 men who are being tested at 6 month intervals. Dr. Kingsley feels
that if MouthAction was a mode of transmission for HIV, then the MACS study would
definately have detected it. Still, he feels that MouthAction poses an
unwarranted risk: "It's like working in a parachute factory--one bad parachute
in 10 million, You can't put a stamp of approval on MouthAction." But he feels
that the real risk of MouthAction is for other (than HIV) transmissible agents,
such as syphilis and Hepatitis B, both of which are known to be transmitted by
MouthAction.

Dr. Kingsley was quick to point out that gay men must stop engaging in
unprotected anal sex, saying that it probably is the reason for "virtually all
new HIV infections." He also says, "For men who will not or cannot give up anal
intercourse, condoms must be used. But condoms have a failure rate of about
10% in studies of family planning pregnancies, due to slippage, misuse, and
breakage." Dr. Kingsley seems concerned that gay men are placing themselves at
risk even when they use condoms. "I believe that the failure rate for condoms
will maintain a low but unacceptable failure rate." He went on to point out
that withdrawing prior to ejaculation is one way to enhance the safety of anal
sex when using condoms.

Dr. Detels is the investigator for the Los Angeles part of the cohort. His
opinion, based on research, is that MouthAction among gay men is substantially
safer than anal sex (even when condoms and spermicides are used). He believes
that if oral transmission occurs that is is rare. (He also feels that Dr.
Koop's position was exactly correct: If you cannot abstain from anal sex, use
condoms. But this is far from saying: use condoms and enjoy anal sex freely,
which is often the "safe sex" message that people hear.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST CASE REPORT
The first reference to a case of HIV oral transmission in the body of medical
literature was reported in a letter to the editors of The Lancet. Dr. Bruce
Voeller cited a single case of heterosexual transmission of HIV where MouthAction
was the presumed mode of transmission. It was a single, oddball case. Dr.
Voeller stated privately: "I guess the odds [of oral transmission] are low.
MouthAction is one of the lower risks. Don't let anyone come in your mouth."

(To put things in perspective, Bruce uses "double bagging" with condoms.) A
recent example of a case report is provided by Andrew Gans at the San Jose
State University. That report begins, "This case finding study interviewed
twelve gay or bisexual men who believed they were infected with HIV through
MouthAction." Gans goes on to explain that "Participants were categorized as cases
of MouthAction transmission if they could rule out alternative routes of HIV
transmission."

Other case reports surface from time to time, but these reports can never have
the same standing as carefully administered cohort studies. But they serve as
a warning: while the risk of MouthAction is low, it isn't zero.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Role of saliva
Patricia Fultz, a researcher for the US Centers for Disease Control
tested the effect of saliva on HIV cultures and found that "Whole [primate]
saliva can inactivate large amounts of virus within an hour." Ms. Fultz says
that her research "Supports the theory that casual contact does not transmit
the virus [HIV]. I cannot definitely say that kissing would be safe. If it
[oral transmission] occurs, it would be rare."

Don Hicks, a former researcher for the CDC, took this research further by
testing the effect of human saliva on HIV. He stated: "When considering
the issue of oral transmission we must conclude that while it is obvious
that vaginal secretions and semen are excellent sites of transmission, the
mouth is a poor receptor site. Our study supports this conclusion. Still,
much more research, must occur before any practical conclusion may be
drawn, [regarding] safer sex."

Parting thoughts
Each of us must consider the relative risk of MouthAction in light of
what we know, what we don't know, and in relation to other risks that we might
be taking. We know that studies of large numbers of gay men have not
implicated MouthAction as a high risk for transmission of HIV. We also know that
condoms fail and that unprotected anal sex provides an efficient route for
transmission of HIV. It is unlikely that we will ever see government
funded research put the stamp of approval on MouthAction, but the facts will
eventually point the way.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who wrote the safe sex guidelines?

Most (but not all) AIDS information providers claim to follow guidelines
set by the U S Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. The CDC is an arm
of the US Public Health Service and is responsible for formulating health
guidelines for all U S epidemics.

CDC public affairs specialist Chuck Fallis explains that they subcontracted
this particular set of guidelines to a private company, The Centers for
Prevention Services. Dr. Katherine Stone, CPS staff epidemiologist for
MouthAction, would not respond to inquiries. One might conclude that the
basis for the CDC guidelines is not public information.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LESBIANS & MouthAction

The CDC does not maintain a category for lesbians in its monitoring of the
AIDS epidemic. This has limited the availability of reliable data on the
extent of infection in the lesbian population, and made the issue of
lesbian health precautions unclear. Lesbians may find it particularly
difficult to find a source of supply for dental dams, which are recommended
for oral-vaginal sex.

The Colorado AIDS Program (CAP) has a Safer Sex Kit available which may be
of interest to women. It contains a glove, a dry condom for toys, a packet
of lube, a dental dam, and instructions for use. CAP can be contacted by
calling (303) 830-2437.What do the experts say?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT DO THE EXPERTS SAY?

"Avoid anal sex. If you must engage in anal sex, use a condom.
Unprotected MouthAction is probably safer than anal sex with a condom. Avoid
unprotected MouthAction. But if you must, use a condom. There are credible
reports of oral transmission. Unprotected MouthAction is risky."
--Dr. Lawrence Kingsley
Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study

"I would not be astounded if individuals could acquire HIV orally. It
would seem to be realtively rare. The risk is not zero. In the absence of
oral lesions it is probably low risk--extremely low on the scale."
--Dr. Martin Schechter
Lymphadenopathy-AIDS Study Group
Vancouver

"We've been preaching don't do anal for so many years that our study
participants might be afraid to tell us about having anal sex. This could
account for some of the oral transmission."
--Dr. Lawrence Kingsley
Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study

"Can you get it from a toilet? You might sit on ten million seats and get
it. But that doesn't implicate toilet seats as a mode of transmission.
The overwhelming weight of evidence is that HIV is not transmitted by
kissing or oral-genital contact. But you have to be prudent when making
public health policy. I would not recommend unprotected MouthAction."
--Dr. Warren Winkelstein, Jr.
San Francisco Men's Health Study
School of Public Health
University of California at Berkeley

"Oral transmission is an extremely rare event, probably because of
the inactivation of virus by saliva."
--Don Hicks
Chief of Retrovirology Microbiology Reference Labs

"Less than 10% of our study group now engage in unprotected anal sex, down
from 90% when we began our study nine years ago."
--Dr. Lawrence Kingsley
Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study

"One of the big problems with studies of sexual behavior is the inherent
inaccuracies built in. Sex is not exact and reporting of sex isn't either.
Can you remember the exact number of times you went down on someone this
year? Of those times, how many of them resulted in climax for your
partner? How many of those times did you swallow? We can all see how
vague this is in comparison to transmission of virus during dental
procedures or needle-stick incidents where careful and complete records are
kept."
--Dr. BruceVoeller
Mariposa Foundation
Topanga California


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT DO THE HOTLINES SAY?

"You are not at risk with passive MouthAction. The active partner is at some
risk. It is more risky to swallow semen. As far as we know, saliva does
not transmit AIDS."
--U S Centers for Disease Control, AIDS information hotline

"As the [insertive] participant, there is no risk at all. As the
[receptive] partner, there is a very low risk, but don't let anybody come
in your mouth."

- Nat'l Gay & Lesbian Task Force
New York

"The official answer is: use a rubber."
--Whitman Walker Clinic
Washington, DC

"MouthAction is considered to be a low risk activity but not risk-free."
--Whitman Walker Clinic
Washington, DC

"We're not really sure. We've seen literature indicating that it is
possibly safe up to the point of climax."
--Austin AIDS Project

"There is no danger from MouthAction unless there is a cut on the penis. Oral
sex is probably safe prior to climax."
-- Health Crisis Network Miami

"We don't recommend french kissing. MouthAction is safer than sexual
intercourse."
--Colo. Dept. of Health

"We really don't know how dangerous it is. Some people enjoy the act of
MouthAction; we suggest you use a condom if this is the case. Good
prostitutes use them [condoms] all the time."
--SF AIDS Foundation
San Francisco

"You have to use a rubber for MouthAction. Period."
--Gay Men's Health Crisis
New York City

"If the skin of the penis and the lining of the mouth are both intact there
is no risk. We recommend condoms, as unpleasant as that sounds."
--Gay Men's Health Crisis
New York City

"There is an enzyme in saliva that destroys the virus. Don't let someone
come in your mouth. A condom or dental dam makes it a low risk activity.
--San Diego AIDS Foundation

"MouthAction is unsafe. You run a risk any time you exchange bodily [sic]
fluids. Bleeding gums pose a risk. A cut on the penis poses a risk."
--Metro Health Clinic
Denver

"Avoid all sexual contact."
--U S Centers for Disease Control
recorded information hotline
Atlanta

My peace this lecture is too long

I can't read all that in a year

Yes, Its long indeed. I want to put a CONCLUSION in the discussion, people shd read it and make an informed decision, instead of all the ramblings. The Conculsion of the whole matter is that MouthAction negative effect is still the same as vaginal sex negative effects, but in MouthAction, the risk is lower compared to anal and vaginal sex. The bottom line to all is that 'use CONDOM', use ur head and play safe. BUT I BET ALL THAT - MouthAction IS MORE ENJOYABLE THAN VAGINAL SEX!!! Play safe ooo, and dont do swallow and avoid anybody CUMing inside your mouth. All the best.

dang!!!! what a research.

hmmm?? now why would a man be reading homosexual literature?? hmmm?
MYPEACE r u at peace with yourself? hmmm?

I am definately at peace with myself.  That am not a homosexual doesnot mean i shdnt make research concerning them.  My dear, you hv to read to be better informed.  This is era of knowledge explosion, it cost me nothing to get these info, so why shdnt i read them to be better informed. I know you enjoyed the article, you only needed to THANK ME, not talking otherwise.  Anyway, nigerians don't appreciate FREE things!  I am not bothered, but am glad you read it, and i know u learnt from it.   for u info, am a WOMAN.

sorry. i did not read it in it's entirety. as soon as it became obvious that it had a homosexual slant to it i stop reading. most certainly i agree that one should read to be constantly informed. however, i am sure that on the subject of MouthAction there are a lot more, and perhaps better sources for the aforementioned information. i am also intrigued as to the reason for you to be reading on the particular subject. pardon me, if i'm being presumptious; but it would seem to me that your interest extend beyond mere reading on the topic. kind respond, i would love to have your comments.

yea, Inow see that ur first and even second posts were based on assumptions. If you can just copy and paste it on your comp, i.e if you are browsing from you office or personal comp, then read it at your own time. I guess you will come out with a better judgement of the write-up or the research. It is not based mainly on homosexual, homosexual was brought in as a mere aspect of the topic just to balance issues. Please just read it well and come out with a better criticism and judgement. Kindest regards.

My peace, I hail you oooooooooooooo

Jammin, no knolwedge is a waste

We think that MouthAction is a very important part of our love making and enjoy it very much

MouthAction is as important as any other sexual technique! Those of you who deem it as a dirty practice and evil should really seek help from a specialist.

You are going to lead a very sad and unfufilled sexual life

MouthAction rocks

reverend you sure betray ur name
lol

se na same mouth wey u dey use praiz God- u still use chop those nicks and pits.

may God 4give u guys- father 4give them though they know what they are doing!

MouthAction is a SIN in Xtiandom
Scripturally,It is sexual perversion
it is unhygienic and disgusting
Why will a man be licking a woman's vagina?
Pls desist from it

PLS WATCH IT MOUTH ACTION IS ONLY GOOD FOR FAITHFULL AND LOYAL PARTNERS,BUT THE PROBLEM IS THIS DAYS U NEVER CAN TELL WHO IS CHEATING ON WHO MAY GOD SAVE US.