PDA

View Full Version : BBBJ actual transmission rates?



FatSo543
04-12-17, 21:59
Quick question for those in the know: My usual approach is BBBJ, followed by covered full. Does anyone have a website that shows actual transmission rates for each of the STIs? I'm assuming that everyone woman I go near is infected. Thanks! Google hath failed me on this.

Hargow20
04-22-17, 15:36
The risk HIV infection is basically nil. Let's remember that there has been only one documented case of HIV from fellatio. This was from a homosexual. Many male homosexuals have unprotected anal sex and might has as many as 300 different sexual partners a year. For myself I might have 3 or 4 BJ's a month and it's with the same girls for the most part.

(https://www.poz.com/article/HIV-risk-25382-5829).


Quick question for those in the know: My usual approach is BBBJ, followed by covered full. Does anyone have a website that shows actual transmission rates for each of the STIs? I'm assuming that everyone woman I go near is infected. Thanks! Google hath failed me on this.

Flynnster
09-05-17, 00:08
Quick question for those in the know: My usual approach is BBBJ, followed by covered full. Does anyone have a website that shows actual transmission rates for each of the STIs? I'm assuming that everyone woman I go near is infected. Thanks! Google hath failed me on this.Check out this link, very scary!

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/untreatable-super-gonorrhea-rise-spread-oral-sex-article-1.3309147

MeyghaMann
04-08-18, 21:33
Check out this link, very scary!

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/untreatable-super-gonorrhea-rise-spread-oral-sex-article-1.3309147Holy shit!

Cephlapod Love
04-10-18, 10:35
Holy shit!Before one gets too excited, let's look at that article critically. Sure looks like the author had an agenda, something on the order of scaring people into monogamy.

First the title appears to be a bit misleading. While the disease can be spread by oral sex, the article clarifies that "the new antibiotic-resistant strain developed through a mistreatment of gonorrhea bacteria left in the throat after oral sex. " This does not mean the primary mode of transmission was by oral sex.

In fact, the article is silent on the transmission rates. I. e. How likely one oral sex encounter is to lead to infection. Also, other studies have shown the type of oral sex results in different transmission rates: receiving oral sex vs giving oral sex. So what is the most prevelant mode of transmission of gonorrhea? Anal sex? Vaginal Sex? Giving oral sex? Receiving oral sex?

While the story says the new strain is effecting people all over the world, it does not say how many people or how prevalent it is in the USA. It does say 78 million people catch gonorrhea every year, but that is not to say that 78 MM are catching the new strain. And world wide, out of how many people in the world? 7 Billion? That is around 1. 1% of the total population of the world that gets gonorrhea every year, not necessarily the drug resistant strain. But most of that infection could be confined to third world countries or other specific areas. We don't know as the author left this information out? Why?

But the article does say that 820,000 people in the USA get gonorrhea every year. Again, that is not the number of people who catch the drug resistant strain. Remember, there are 352 MM people in the USA. So only 0. 23% of the entire USA population contracts gonorrhea every year! That means if you picked a random person off of the street there would be a 99.77% chance that that person did not or would not be infected with gonorrhea. Is THAT an acceptable risk or something to be worried about?

So how prevalent is this new drug resistant strain in the USA? How many people actually get it? What percentage of the population have it? What is one's likely exposure or risk of catching it?

It sure looks like this is a piece that is designed not to relay relevant facts that intelligent adults can use to evaluate risk, rather a scare tactic to tweak emotions and thus control behaviors.

RustyMuffler
04-10-18, 13:30
Without even addressing the drug resistant strain mentioned in the "sky is falling" news article, which is no doubt not yet a major problem in the US. There is a major falicy inside your otherwise well-reasoned post--which you emphasized in all caps, that has me shaking my head.

You wrote: "That means if you picked a random person off of the street there would be a 99.77% chance that that person did not or would not be infected with gonorrhea. Is THAT an acceptable risk or something to be worried about?"

Setting aside the sampling bias of selecting a "random person off the street" equaling the chance they have gonorrhea as simply a percentage of the overall US population vs. The percentage within the US who are diagnosed with gonorrhea once a year, (and ignoring the fact that even little children and nuns are factored into your math equation,) let's just discuss the common sense flaw of your argument.

If you pick up a sex worker off the street, are you choosing someone who has an average chance of having an STD like gonorrhea? Would the random person you chose for a blow job have the same chance of having their throat infected as someone who you were the 2nd guy, 3rd guy, or the 7th guy they BBBJed that day? What if you were the 21st different guy they DTed that week? Or the 31st that month? Would that person offer the same risk as someone you just randomly picked off the street?

And you are not picking them up at a random place. What if you picked them up in Ogden, Utah vs. Off of one of the tracks in Baltimore?

I appreciate your overall point, but you seem to be overly minimizing the chances of contracting an STD in general when choosing to engage in risky behavior like receiving unprotected oral from a sex worker.


Before one gets too excited, let's look at that article critically. Sure looks like the author had an agenda, something on the order of scaring people into monogamy.

First the title appears to be a bit misleading. While the disease can be spread by oral sex, the article clarifies that "the new antibiotic-resistant strain developed through a mistreatment of gonorrhea bacteria left in the throat after oral sex. " This does not mean the primary mode of transmission was by oral sex.

In fact, the article is silent on the transmission rates. I. e. How likely one oral sex encounter is to lead to infection. Also, other studies have shown the type of oral sex results in different transmission rates: receiving oral sex vs giving oral sex. So what is the most prevelant mode of transmission of gonorrhea? Anal sex? Vaginal Sex? Giving oral sex? Receiving oral sex?

While the story says the new strain is effecting people all over the world, it does not say how many people or how prevalent it is in the USA. It does say 78 million people catch gonorrhea every year, but that is not to say that 78 MM are catching the new strain. And world wide, out of how many people in the world? 7 Billion? That is around 1. 1% of the total population of the world that gets gonorrhea every year, not necessarily the drug resistant strain. But most of that infection could be confined to third world countries or other specific areas. We don't know as the author left this information out? Why?

But the article does say that 820,000 people in the USA get gonorrhea every year. Again, that is not the number of people who catch the drug resistant strain. Remember, there are 352 MM people in the USA. So only 0. 23% of the entire USA population contracts gonorrhea every year! That means if you picked a random person off of the street there would be a 99.77% chance that that person did not or would not be infected with gonorrhea. Is THAT an acceptable risk or something to be worried about?

So how prevalent is this new drug resistant strain in the USA? How many people actually get it? What percentage of the population have it? What is one's likely exposure or risk of catching it?

It sure looks like this is a piece that is designed not to relay relevant facts that intelligent adults can use to evaluate risk, rather a scare tactic to tweak emotions and thus control behaviors.

FatSo543
05-22-18, 14:47
Quick question for those in the know: My usual approach is BBBJ, followed by covered full. Does anyone have a website that shows actual transmission rates for each of the STIs? I'm assuming that everyone woman I go near is infected. Thanks! Google hath failed me on this.Thanks All. I appreciate the info. I dodged the bullet so far (knock on wood). I just did 69 with a provider for the first time. Haha, and I have alcohol swabbed my mouth and crank. And nervous again. Maybe this hobby isn't for me. .

LuvOral
08-15-18, 10:26
Anyone ever have a false negative for gono or chlamydia?

XvrzaX
05-25-21, 01:33
Without even addressing the drug resistant strain mentioned in the "sky is falling" news article, which is no doubt not yet a major problem in the US. There is a major falicy inside your otherwise well-reasoned post--which you emphasized in all caps, that has me shaking my head.

You wrote: "That means if you picked a random person off of the street there would be a 99.77% chance that that person did not or would not be infected with gonorrhea. Is THAT an acceptable risk or something to be worried about?"

Setting aside the sampling bias of selecting a "random person off the street" equaling the chance they have gonorrhea as simply a percentage of the overall US population vs. The percentage within the US who are diagnosed with gonorrhea once a year, (and ignoring the fact that even little children and nuns are factored into your math equation,) let's just discuss the common sense flaw of your argument.

If you pick up a sex worker off the street, are you choosing someone who has an average chance of having an STD like gonorrhea? Would the random person you chose for a blow job have the same chance of having their throat infected as someone who you were the 2nd guy, 3rd guy, or the 7th guy they BBBJed that day? What if you were the 21st different guy they DTed that week? Or the 31st that month? Would that person offer the same risk as someone you just randomly picked off the street?

And you are not picking them up at a random place. What if you picked them up in Ogden, Utah vs. Off of one of the tracks in Baltimore?Damn. Well said.

Gail D Barry
05-26-21, 17:44
Its very hot.