Oral and STDs - Yesterday's "Guardian"

7 Jul 2006

Quote by johnjdh42
Yes, whilst I did not (and indeed, do not) have the article to hand and I can't find it on their website to refer to, it did say that the gay community was seeing the rise in syphillis first.
It went on to say that there was a rise in the older hetro community that it said might be due to swinging. And that there seeing neo-natal syphillis for the first time in years.
OK, so you're right, slow news day and papers to sell... could be just that. Equally, could be for real, are you going to take the chance? Having spent the last 44 years learning to evaluate one news source from another, my gut feel is that this was for real.
John

Yes, there is a rise in Sypillis on the Gay community. Also a rise of known HIV patients who present with secondary STI's (inc Syphillis and Gonorrhoea) AFTER they have been diagnosed with HIV. There seems to be an attitude of "Well I'm already infected, it can't be any worse for me, I'll go and and be promiscuous".
Yes, there is an increase in the older hetro community........case history often suggests Sex tourism as a factor.
Yes, there is an increase in neo-natal Syphillis and HIV. Catagories include unprotected hetro sex, babies born to IV drug users and babies born to immigrants/asylum seekers from Eastern European countries and Sub-Sahara Africa.
More information and epidemiological data can be found by following this link;

Les x

7 Jul 2006

For anyone interested in GUM waiting times, here is the link to the "GUM National Waiting Time Audit" With data up to May this year.

Les x

7 Jul 2006

Quote by couple_ne2000
For anyone interested in GUM waiting times, here is the link to the "GUM National Waiting Time Audit" With data up to May this year.

Les x

It is worth noting the audit looks at 'appointment' waiting times (the same 48hr target as your local GP) and not 'walk-in clinics' - walk-in clinics may have long delays but you don't have to wait 48hrs wink

7 Jul 2006

Quote by PoloLady
For anyone interested in GUM waiting times, here is the link to the "GUM National Waiting Time Audit" With data up to May this year.

Les x

It is worth noting the audit looks at 'appointment' waiting times (the same 48hr target as your local GP) and not 'walk-in clinics' - walk-in clinics may have long delays but you don't have to wait 48hrs wink

:thumbup:
Many GUM offer an "I'M OK" clinic, which is a walk in, first come, first served arangement. These clinics are designed for patients who have not experienced any symptoms, and are basically attending for the sexual equivelant of an MOT.
Clinics may also offer walk-in sessions for patients presenting with symptoms. It is always a good idea to telephone the clinic first to check (some GUM's have their own websites, like this one )
I am also someone who is happy to shout from the rooftops that I go for regular check ups (frequency depending on my level of sexual activity). I do not see what there is to be embarressed about dunno

;
I'm female, therefore I go for regular smear tests. I check my breasts, and if there was a change I would get them checked. I have several large moles, which I have had checked in the past and now keep an eye on. I am sexually active and am not embarassed to attend a FP clinic for contraception advice. Why should I then be embarassed to attend a GUM - yes, it can be assumed by my attendance that I'm sexually active, but nothing else.
Les x

7 Jul 2006

Quote by PoloLady

Or, alternatively, practice safe sex.
.

Do you have any idea what 'safe sex' actually is?

Quote by westerross
I'm not trying to put people off going for a check up but they should know that it's not just a matter of indulging in a bout of bareback and then toddling along to the nearest clinic.

Oh - I see. If you put a condom on before you slip in the winckle then 'that' is safe sex :doh: - and condoms are 100% reliable as we all know rolleyes

Ahem, I think beneath all the vitriol we're on the same side aren't we?
I tell you now I'd love the comfortable arrangement that Kiss_me has but I tell you down this way it's not like that - it's war. The walk-in clinic just ain't a walk in. Maybe half a dozen people will get in and the reamining 40 - 50 people get turned away. You should see the look of disappointment/panic on their faces when that happens. The phone in the nearest appointment clinic in Bristol has a permanent engaged tone all morning on it and then when you get through - you get a recorded message that says you're too late and to ring up 'next Monday'. I go private - but it is pricey!
I'm not saying safe sex is the absolute answer - we all know that there is no such thing as safe sex. But it is a question of degrees. Many variables here - how frequently you do it, whom you do it with and - most importantly whether it is 'safe' sex.
For example, if you do it once every six months with an irregular partner then there is no point following your model PL of a check up every 3 months is there? If you do it - even bare back, with someone you know and trust - then you might not check up so often. If you practice 'safe' sex then you may stretch it out even further - it's all a matter of judgement - not frantic judgemental paranoia applied by a formula.
The main message I want to get over is that don't go bareback and think it's easy to find out if you've caught summat - 'cos in some areas of the UK at least it ain't easy!
.

7 Jul 2006

Quote by westerross
For example, if you do it once every six months with an irregular partner then there is no point following your model PL of a check up every 3 months is there? If you do it - even bare back, with someone you know and trust - then you might not check up so often. If you practice 'safe' sex then you may stretch it out even further - it's all a matter of judgement - not frantic judgemental paranoia applied by a formula.

I would have thought it goes without saying (but I should have known better) that if you have been inactive, then there is little point in going for a further check-up until you have been active again. If you have one regular partner, you have both been checked and neither of you have other partners (though I would not think of that as swinging or being promiscuous), then again why have further checks until the situation changes.

Quote by westerross
The main message I want to get over is that don't go bareback and think it's easy to find out if you've caught summat - 'cos in some areas of the UK at least it ain't easy!

The main message I want to get over is... wearing a condom is the wisest thing anyone can do during sex - but it does not mean you are 100% safe. Whilst I am sexually active, whether it was 3 or 33 people I have had sex with (with condoms) I will go for regular check-ups. Wearing a condom does not mean it is safe to not bother.

7 Jul 2006

Quote by PoloLady

For example, if you do it once every six months with an irregular partner then there is no point following your model PL of a check up every 3 months is there? If you do it - even bare back, with someone you know and trust - then you might not check up so often. If you practice 'safe' sex then you may stretch it out even further - it's all a matter of judgement - not frantic judgemental paranoia applied by a formula.

I would have thought it goes without saying (but I should have known better) that if you have been inactive, then there is little point in going for a further check-up until you have been active again. If you have one regular partner, you have both been checked and neither of you have other partners (though I would not think of that as swinging or being promiscuous), then again why have further checks until the situation changes.

Quote by westerross
The main message I want to get over is that don't go bareback and think it's easy to find out if you've caught summat - 'cos in some areas of the UK at least it ain't easy!

The main message I want to get over is... wearing a condom is the wisest thing anyone can do during sex - but it does not mean you are 100% safe. Whilst I am sexually active, whether it was 3 or 33 people I have had sex with (with condoms) I will go for regular check-ups. Wearing a condom does not mean it is safe to not bother.
Well I'm glad we agree and thankyou fer expressing it in your inimitable way!! wink

.

7 Jul 2006

markz wanders off reassured by the fact he won't catch anything from wanking rolleyes

7 Jul 2006

OK, I made the appointment with mt doc yesterday. Went in and was signed straight into a date for the tests. It would have been next monday but I couldn;t kae it until later in the week. So no probs. If I thought I needed immediate treatment I think I would still have had to wait a bit, but for a check-up - no problems at all. Full suite of swabs - even a smear (I hate that thing!!!!!) in one session.

8 Jul 2006

Quote by markz
markz wanders off reassured by the fact he won't catch anything from wanking

Don't bank on it. If you catch sight of yerself in the mirror it could be nasty!

9 Jul 2006

Quote by de_sade
If you practice safe sex with ALL your partners there would be NO NEED to go to your local Glasshouse (clinic) every three months, six months or six years; and the bollocks about what if the barrier / condom / whatever breaks is just that - bollocks. If you need to go to a clinic every so often because of that occurrence then maybe it's time to change your brand ... or technique.
Safe sex ... It might not be the most exciting way to swing but it is the most responsible.
De_sade

I'm sorry, but that's absolute bollocks. The phrase you're looking for here is 'SafER sex'. Yes, condoms reduce the risk of catching an STI, but they are NOT 100% effective, and there are some STIs that can be caught from non-penetrative contact, and it just IS NOT enough to assume that because you use condoms you don't need to think about it again.
It's not about the possibility of the condom breaking, it's about the FACT that condoms don't protect you 100%.

9 Jul 2006

Quote by makingcocoa

If you practice safe sex with ALL your partners there would be NO NEED to go to your local Glasshouse (clinic) every three months, six months or six years; and the bollocks about what if the barrier / condom / whatever breaks is just that - bollocks. If you need to go to a clinic every so often because of that occurrence then maybe it's time to change your brand ... or technique.
Safe sex ... It might not be the most exciting way to swing but it is the most responsible.
De_sade

I'm sorry, but that's absolute bollocks. The phrase you're looking for here is 'SafER sex'. Yes, condoms reduce the risk of catching an STI, but they are NOT 100% effective, and there are some STIs that can be caught from non-penetrative contact, and it just IS NOT enough to assume that because you use condoms you don't need to think about it again.
It's not about the possibility of the condom breaking, it's about the FACT that condoms don't protect you 100%.
:thumbup:
Putting a condom on a cock is not the be all and end all of 'safe sex' - as this thread's original point was highlighting the risks through oral.
I have yet to meet anyone from this site who carries anything other than a condom - so what about the oral transfer of STI's?
I practice 'safer sex' - I am under no illusion that getting a guy to put on a condom makes it 100% 'safe'.

9 Jul 2006

Quote by de_sade
If you practice safe sex with ALL your partners there would be NO NEED to go to your local Glasshouse (clinic) every three months, six months or six years; and the bollocks about what if the barrier / condom / whatever breaks is just that - bollocks. If you need to go to a clinic every so often because of that occurrence then maybe it's time to change your brand ... or technique.

What a load of tosh or should I say bolloks! I would be laughing but feel now isn't really the time! I don't go to a clinic because of something I see, i.e. a condom or barrier breaking etc, I go to a clinic for regular checks just in case something happens that I don't see!

Quote by de_sade
I'm sorry but have I.Q's dropped sharply in the SH forum? Has anything actually been added to my "very responsible" safe sex suggestion other than the letter R?

How arrogant your comments are (IMHO!).
As for your truly enlightening comments about "if everyone practiced safe sex"... of course there would be no need to go to a clinic or indeed for GUM clinics to exist. :doh: I'm sure your ideal world is a lovely place to live!

9 Jul 2006

You have called others comments "banal" and accuse the IQ level of the forum of dropping.
Need I say more?
I think we were all saying that practicing safe sex AND visiting a clinic IS the ultimate safe sex! You state otherwise and suggest that people are doing something wrong sexually, otherwise there wouldn't be a need to visit a clinic.
rolleyes

9 Jul 2006

Quote by de_sade
SAFE SEX, SAFEr SEX or SAFEst SEX, if it really is a question of semantics aren't we missing the point? Which is, afterall if you PRACTICE SAFE/ER/EST SEX with ALL your sexual partners there would be NO NEED to keep trotting to the clap clinic every 12 weeks. SAFE/ER/EST SEX means having a responsible attitude to ALL aspects of your sex life.
De_sade

Unfortunately the vast majority of people cannot be 100% certain that all their sexual partners always use condoms, or that their partners always use condoms, therefore the only way to be sure that you haven't picked up an infection is to be tested regularly.
Not many people use condoms in the way it is described in the literature to maximise protection (myself included). According to the literature a condom should be worn as soon as an erection is achieved. Even this does not protect against becoming infected by contaminating your hands with infective material then touching a partner (or rubbing your eyes etc - yes I have seen cases of this, admittledly they are rare) especially if there are open cuts or sores.
Regular testing is important to be sure you are free from infection. With HIV the viral load is often too low to be detected in the first 3 - 6 months of infection, hence the need for retesting.
Les x

9 Jul 2006

I haven't read any comments from anyone saying "oh yeah I just do what I like then go to a clinic to clear it up!".
Have you??

9 Jul 2006

Quote by de_sade
I'm sorry but have I.Q's dropped sharply in the SH forum? ...
...As for PoloLady's comments in response to MakingCocoa's banal statement I wonder if she had actually read my post. I used the word barrier as well as condom thereby indicating that I fully acknowledge that STI's can be transmitted by means other than just penetrative sex.
De_sade

Yes - having reread your post it does indeed and whilst I stand corrected on that point I am not withdrawing my statement as I feel 'some' people may (as I did initially) take your use of the word 'barrier to be an alternative name for condom.

Quote by de_sade
And as for her not yet meeting anyone from SH that carries any other protection than a condom...Guess it's down to your choice in partners so far because some people do take this very serious matter very seriously.
De_sade

Sorry let me rephrase that - I have not come across through sexual encounter or conversation anyone who carries and insists on using any form of protection other than a condom.
To many people 'safe sex' is using a condom. Saying that if you have 'safe sex' you don't have to worry at all and you can forget going for check-ups is (IMHO) open to a great deal of misinterpretation and is not particularly a productive thing to do, without clearly explaining what 'safe sex' actually is.

9 Jul 2006

Quote by de_sade
Point taken PoloLady. I hope that my comments did not cause you any offence because none was meant.

None taken wink

10 Jul 2006

Quote by de_sade
Point taken PoloLady. I hope that my comments did not cause you any offence because none was meant.
On the other hand and in respect of some others...
Strange that I should be villified by some on here though for preaching what should be a first thought for anyone who practices a swinging lifestyle.
Anyway I'll let those that need to have the last word have it now because I have a football match to watch.
Cheeri-bye
De_sade

Seems you have a bit of a complex! lol

Firstly I think vilified is a bit strong even for you, I perhaps think that it's your insulting posts and critical manner that had raised a few eyebrows.
If you have the gall to tell me and others that we may be using condoms/barriers incorrectly otherwise we wouldn't need to visit a clinic I think you're bound to get a response, especially due to your rather condescending nature.
Did you answer my question from my earlier post or did you simply deem it unworthy of your time or response? rolleyes

If you can't take it and think you are a victim being vilified by others on the forum don't dish it out.

10 Jul 2006

Quote by de_sade
Kiss_me,
Please learn to read. Or at least learn NOT to read into other peoples posts what isn't there. Tell me where I told you and others that you may be using condoms / barriers incorrectly otherwise you wouldn't need to visit a clinic? Read the post again and you'll see...
Errr to quote you I think you should re-read your own posts. Classic De_Sade drivel...
]If you practice safe sex with ALL your partners there would be NO NEED to go to your local Glasshouse (clinic) every three months, six months or six years; and the bollocks about what if the barrier / condom / whatever breaks is just that - bollocks. If you need to go to a clinic every so often because of that occurrence then maybe it's time to change your brand ... or technique.

Donâ€™t attempt to fend off my comments by twisting them. You canâ€™t insult people and then agree with the general point of the thread and then say â€œWhat did I say wrong as I didnâ€™t
I didn't answer your question from the earlier post because it was not worth the effort if you jump to conclusions all the time. and besides the football was much more entertaining.
I think the above comment speak volumes. Then again I donâ€™t suppose somebody with a self-imposed ego the size of yours would lower yourself to answer me. Yet more calssic De_Sade.... :sleeping:
What is it you don't like about the words SAFE SEX? It was actually you who vilified me for making a suggestion about the moral responsibilities of people who indulge in a swinging lifestyle. Why does SAFE SEX bother you so? You say you practice it so why get pissed off with me for suggesting it..? Or is it that despite the fact that my suggestion made absolute moral sense you had already dug yourself into a trench and could not back out?
According to whom? You? rotflmao

I am speechless at this juncture De_Sade! If I may ask you to actually read what I posted if you deem it worthy of your time..

Quote by Kiss_Me
I wouldn't perform oral sex on a guy without him wearing a condom (unless we were in a safe steady relationship) and I certainly wouldn't go down on a woman without using a dental dam or something similar.
I still can't grasp why some people will insist a man wears a condom but then proceed to go down on his female partner!
I always practice safe sex and get myself checked regularly and I believe it's every persons responsibility to do the same.

Whichever, the simple fact of the matter and the thread is that STI can be tranmitted by various forms of sex including penetrative but not excluding oral sex and that for all parties involved who lead a lifestyle that will bring them into contact with more sexual partners than other social groups the practice of safe sex is paramount.
Why are you so hell-bent on preaching to the converted? I merely jumped back into the conversation because as per you were thrusting your views forward in quite an unpleasant manner.
If you can't agree with that principle (Though I am sure a smart girl like you would agree) or don't want to adhere to it (Though again I am sure that is not the case), state it clearly in your profile so that those that may wish to swing with you are given the correct information to make an informed decision about their choices.
What like telling people that a condom splitting is bollocks? Top notch advice there. More patronising waffle....
Anyway, I have a feeling this is not about the thread...Too many pointed comments about me personally (you might want to read the AUP again Miss May 2006). Anyone would have thought I had attacked you personally...
De_Sade get real and donâ€™t flatter yourself please. lol

You seem to be able to go around the forum insulting others and then dare to tell me Iâ€™m being personal? Would you like me to re-quote the insulting comments you have made in this thread? rolleyes

As for me making pointed comments at you! :rotflmao: Does the thought of a dominant woman really grate on you that much that you think I have some sort of personal vendetta against De-Sade? That would imply that I care. wink

10 Jul 2006

:gagged:
:color:

10 Jul 2006

Quote by de_sade
:lol: :lol:
You make me laugh kiss_me. No, really you do.
But that's about all.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Dominant woman? You? Don't make me laugh more. :lol: :lol: :lol:
You don't even know me little girl.
But you assume a lot. Because of my nick? :lol: :lol: :lol:
You might have more posts than me but that's all. You're not even a real person.
I said take it to PM, but you just wouldn't let it lie.
Gloves aren't off. You're not worth it sweet-pea.
De_sade

It's funny but I was laughing too - strange how we both find so much humour in this. Did you think all those smiley emoticons makes your post more convincing? I think not! :lol:
Ok so I may not be a totally Dominant woman but hey I'm not a sub either De_Sade and you can try to throw your weight and imagined status around but it doesn't wash with me.
You just carry on making yourself feel better by patronising me and attempting to puff your chest out while we all have a good giggle.
I'm afriad to disappoint you but I am real De_Sade, as several other people on here can testify but let's not bother them just to prove a point hey?
Yes you 'told' me to take it to PM - but perhaps that's where your post should have ended up too? What's good for the goose and all that.
As for the gloves not being off... :sleeping:
I have formed my opinion of you De_Sade from how you behave and what you write etc - nothing to do with your nickname I'm afriad. Sorry is it meant to mean something to me - is that why you chose it? rotflmao

Ohh and you forgot to tell me in your ever-so lovely manner exactly what I said that was incorrect in my last post! wave

You simply rely on people 'letting it lie' due to your caustic nature - but not this 'little girl'.
Waiting here with baited breath at your next musings... KM :wink:

10 Jul 2006

'little girl' ? de_sad.....
I half expect you to follow that with 'yeah and ya mum smells of poo'.... rolleyes

The thing is however many condoms you wear (is there a record!?) creams and potions and check-ups how can you ever be certain when discussing someone's sexual history that they are being totally honest with you whilst nursing a raging hard-on (or wide on!?)... surely all contact has some risk?
Maybe someone should invent a shusstificate to prove it... like a driving licence!?
Yes I'm points free and ready to drive this baby on the BI-pass?
lol

10 Jul 2006

As the notice in the GUM clinic says: When you have unprotected sex you're not only having sex with that person, you're having sex with all the previous partners that person has had. And all the partners they had as well.
No sex is safe now, unless you're in a one-to-one relationship and are both "faithful" (?)
So, could the slanging match end now. Neither of the combatants seem to have come out of it unscathed.

10 Jul 2006

Quote by jomu
As the notice in the GUM clinic says: When you have unprotected sex you're not only having sex with that person, you're having sex with all the previous partners that person has had. And all the partners they had as well.
No sex is safe now, unless you're in a one-to-one relationship and are both "faithful" (?)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: