Oral and STDs - Yesterday's "Guardian"

6 Jul 2006

Did anyone else read the article on the rise of STDs in yesterday's (ie Tuesday) Guardian?
One aspect that I suspect many of us will find alarming is that it reckons that 40% of men who catch syphillis do so from oral sex. For better or worse, most of us regard unproteced oral as being a bit risky perhaps but not that risky.
Given that syphillis is a) pretty bad to get even though very treatable and b) rising at an alarming rate; should we be concerned?
Just wondering what others think,
John

6 Jul 2006

Quote by johnjdh42
Just wondering what others think,
John

I think . . . . .
It highlights the need to be almost on first name terms with the staff at the clap clinic due to having regular checkups, and the strength of character to inform people you've had unprotected sex with if you catch a dose.

6 Jul 2006

Quote by dambuster

Just wondering what others think,
John

I think . . . . .
It highlights the need to be almost on first name terms with the staff at the clap clinic due to having regular checkups.
It always amazes me how many 'swingers' think they need to wait until they think they need to go for a check-up and don't do it as a matter of routine.

6 Jul 2006

Quote by johnjdh42
One aspect that I suspect many of us will find alarming is ...

Nope - what alarms me is people who take risks through blind ignorance and haven't check these things first. Then live in the "it won't happen to me" bubble.

6 Jul 2006

Intersting thread... I didn't read the article but I am aware of the risks from oral sex.
When I was much younger (16) I was a member of a Kite Club, which was a les/bi/gay youth club and we even had sex education which included oral sex, unlike the sex education I got at school which was just about 'cuddles' and babies.
I wouldn't perform oral sex on a guy without him wearing a condom (unless we were in a safe steady relationship) and I certianly 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! :doh:
I always practice safe sex and get myself checked regularly and I believe it's every persons responsibility to do the same.

6 Jul 2006

Question is - how many people actually DO get regular checks? I asked this a while back and whereas everyone talks the talk - my suspicion is that not many do ... mine was 2.5 months ago ... and no, nobody actually responded to the question.

6 Jul 2006

Quote by J3diMast3r
Question is - how many people actually DO get regular checks? I asked this a while back and whereas everyone talks the talk - my suspicion is that not many do ... mine was 2.5 months ago ... and no, nobody actually responded to the question.

Dr Dhar, LRI, GUC - every 3 months.
I had an STI as a teenager and only found out as I thought it was wise to go and have a check-up after hearing a rumour. I have been going for regular checks ever since (though up until a couple of years ago it ws every 12 months). Whilst every test since then has come back clear - I never assume it will not happen to me. I do admit I only have the HIV test every second visit.

6 Jul 2006

I think you'll find that orally transmitted syph is principally a problem with the gay/bi community - I mean the MALE one - essentially through sucking off guys in glory holes/night clubs/toilets etc etc. The male gay community tends to be much more promiscuous that even some of us....In fact there have even been reported cases of HIV being transmitted orally but these have not been proven. The big rise in syph we're seeing in the UK at the moment is principally within the gay community - although it has now started to break out into the bi/straight comm too. And where these diseases go HIV follows.
Its quite unusual but not unheard of to catch something from oral sex with a fem - actually you are probably more at risk of getting gonorrhea in the throat or chalmydia in the eye! Explain that one to the wife......
If you do the research on STIs (I have to as part of my work) you'd never have unprotected sex again!!! And unless you know the person very well nor should you!!
M

6 Jul 2006

You've gone and put the shits up everyone now ...
:shock:

6 Jul 2006

Quote by johnjdh42
Did anyone else read the article on the rise of STDs in yesterday's (ie Tuesday) Guardian?
One aspect that I suspect many of us will find alarming is that it reckons that 40% of men who catch syphillis do so from oral sex. For better or worse, most of us regard unproteced oral as being a bit risky perhaps but not that risky.
Given that syphillis is a) pretty bad to get even though very treatable and b) rising at an alarming rate; should we be concerned?
Just wondering what others think,
John

Guardian !!??!!??
OK - 40% of men who catch syphillis - so how many men catch syphillis? How does that stat break down? What age group and demographic are they? How does it break down into sexual orientation and type of partner. Where is the qualificaton in this statement?
Sorry mate but that is a bollocks statement from a bollocks newspaper which on a slow news day means - useless hype -
If I were to say that over one hundred men a year catch syphillis and 40% of them catch syphillis from infected street prostitutes - would it have any relevance the fact that 40 men a year from the several hundred thousand that pay for sex catch syphillis? More so - how does that affect the swinging community?
OK what I have said is probably not true but what statistics and qualification are the Guardian using?

6 Jul 2006

Quote by MikeBath
If you do the research on STIs (I have to as part of my work) you'd never have unprotected sex again!!! And unless you know the person very well nor should you!!
M

And I supose knowing someone offers that 'special majic' protection? confused

6 Jul 2006

Quote by MikeBath
I think you'll find that orally transmitted syph is principally a problem with the gay/bi community - I mean the MALE one - essentially through sucking off guys in glory holes/night clubs/toilets etc etc. The male gay community tends to be much more promiscuous that even some of us....

:gagged:

6 Jul 2006

I didn't see this article, and I must admit to when I was younger sleeping around a lot and not using any type of protection.
However, when I was 17 a friend of mine found out she had HIV, she is a bit older then me and had only ever been with her boyfriend. Before she met him, he was a drug user and caught HIV that way.
I will never forget the look of fear on my friends face whe she was diagnosed, and she only found out from a routine blood test becaus she was pregnant.
I became a registered 'buddy' for her, and because of the courses I had to do, I learnt a lot about stds and everything, I am now extremely careful, and will not do unpprotected anything!!!
I am tested every 3 months because of the volunteer work I do, not just with my friend, but also with other teenagers and young adults with HIV.
The moral of my story is : you never know who has what, unless you have medical certification always use protection, cause I really don't want to see more people in my groups then I have to!!

6 Jul 2006

Quote by PoloLady

Just wondering what others think,
John

I think . . . . .
It highlights the need to be almost on first name terms with the staff at the clap clinic due to having regular checkups.
It always amazes me how many 'swingers' think they need to wait until they think they need to go for a check-up and don't do it as a matter of routine.
This can be easy to say and difficult to do. GUM clinics are now so overrun that getting a 'regular' check-up is nigh impossible - unless yer prepared to queue up at Wimbledon fortnight lengths. Not all offer an appointments system for that reason - the ones that do are virtually inpenetrable when trying to get an appointment. It is getting serious.
You can go private but that'll cost you upwards of Â£200 for a consultation and a full set of tests.
This is a very pertinent thread!!

6 Jul 2006

Quote by westerross

Just wondering what others think,
John

I think . . . . .
It highlights the need to be almost on first name terms with the staff at the clap clinic due to having regular checkups.
It always amazes me how many 'swingers' think they need to wait until they think they need to go for a check-up and don't do it as a matter of routine.
This can be easy to say and difficult to do. GUM clinics are now so overrun that getting a 'regular' check-up is nigh impossible - unless yer prepared to queue up at Wimbledon fortnight lengths. Not all offer an appointments system for that reason - the ones that do are virtually inpenetrable when trying to get an appointment. It is getting serious.
You can go private but that'll cost you upwards of Â£200 for a consultation and a full set of tests.
This is a very pertinent thread!!
Hey, plenty of people complain about how long they wait to get a 3some what is wrong with waiting in a queue to ensure you are safe? Too much trouble is a load of bollox - it may not be easy but it is not impossible. To say 'oh it is too much trouble to wait a couple of hours' is down right irresponsible for your own safety and the safety of others. Do you have any idea how many STD's don't have symptoms until it is too late and more serious damage is done?
It is about respect - respecting yourself and respecting others you wish to play with. Finding it 'too much trouble' says a lot about a person.

6 Jul 2006

One point about having to wait for a check up.
If you have visit the clap clinic as a matter of routine, you have the "luxury" of ringing up and asking for an appointment.
I you wait until you have an itch, spot, rash, dribble, dishcharge, or whatever; the urgency to get the appointment changes.
And I did actually raise my concerns about "wasting valuable resources" of the NHS a couple of months ago when I had to have three back to back "full work ups" before the doctors (non clap) would start me on one of my meds.
I was reassured that they would rather have regular negative results than wait until my cock started to dribble :shock:
Just a thought.
wink

Having said that - I've only lived in, or within an easy commute of, fairly major cities, or had the skills and facilities of the RAMC available.

6 Jul 2006

Quote by dambuster
One point about having to wait for a check up.
If you have visit the clap clinic as a matter of routine, you have the "luxury" of ringing up and asking for an appointment.
I you wait until you have an itch, spot, rash, dribble, dishcharge, or whatever; the urgency to get the appointment changes.
Just a thought.

Having said that - I've only lived in, or within an easy commute of, fairly major cities, or had the skills and facilities of the RAMC available.

also for all the ladies on here why not just register at you local well woman clinic where they have daily drop in sessions and can cater for all your sexual heath needs......to me it makes sense that whilst they're down there taking swabs they might as well do you smear test etc and they'll do throat swabs for you too if you've given unprotected oral (or for that matter even if u havent..better to just get it all checked whilst ur there!)
and they really friendly and totally non-jugmental in my experience

6 Jul 2006

Quote by PoloLady
Hey, plenty of people complain about how long they wait to get a 3some what is wrong with waiting in a queue to ensure you are safe? Too much trouble is a load of bollox - it may not be easy but it is not impossible.

Because one is before the event and because the other is after the event rolleyes

It's human nature!!
Apart from that there are GUM clinics that just open up and then immediately close down because of 1) lack of staff 2) too many clients waiting. It is NOT just a question of waiting a couple of hours FFS - get real.

6 Jul 2006

Quote by westerross

Hey, plenty of people complain about how long they wait to get a 3some what is wrong with waiting in a queue to ensure you are safe? Too much trouble is a load of bollox - it may not be easy but it is not impossible.

Because one is before the event and because the other is after the event rolleyes

It's human nature!!
Apart from that there are GUM clinics that just open up and then immediately close down because of 1) lack of staff 2) too many clients waiting. It is NOT just a question of waiting a couple of hours FFS - get real.
Get real? :shock:
OK - let's get real....
It is a question of waiting a couple of hours if you go to a walk-in and can be arsed to arrive early (that is if you can't get an appointment).This may involve making a journey to a large hospital elsewhere or finding out which health centres offer sexual health checks. Yes, it does mean putting yourself out a couple of times per year.
Taking the risk that you are not infected is the alternative - of course this is not a risk you take purely with yourself... it involves everyone you have sexual contact with.
But if it is difficult to get regular check-ups - well that is OK, as these people who may also become infected will probably be people you get on with, friends or a partner perhaps - I am sure they will understand when they find out their condition is worse due to the delay in treatmentâ€¦ because one of their 'friends' found it too much trouble to make a journey. I am sure all concerned will be totally agreeable when they realise it would have involved catching a train or something to have found out any earlier what they had been infected with.
Yes - letâ€™s get real â€¦. Why are GUM clinic so busy? Oh yes, because STIâ€™s/STDâ€™s spread at a higher rate through people being ignorant or finding it too much trouble to have a check-up earlier before passing an infection on to even more people. Funny how it wonâ€™t be too much effort when their dick is on fire or they have green gunk oozing in their pants. But then not all STIâ€™s/STDâ€™s show symptoms immediately (i.e. within a week or two) some take months/years before the really nasty stuff is noticeable.
Oh and on another â€˜getting realâ€™ pointâ€¦
People will travel for hours to meet up with play-mates.
People will travel across the country to attend munches.
People will put themselves out to get the action.
Someone who can't be arsed to put themselves out to check that they are not risking their own health, as well as their 'friends', is a -----!(IMHO)

7 Jul 2006

i think my opinion on this is about the same as it usually is on these types of subjects
as adults we know the risks we take and its our buisness only how we chose to deal with them, so long as you protect yourself in the best way you feel you need to what others do is upto them smile

7 Jul 2006

Quote by PoloLady

Hey, plenty of people complain about how long they wait to get a 3some what is wrong with waiting in a queue to ensure you are safe? Too much trouble is a load of bollox - it may not be easy but it is not impossible.

Because one is before the event and because the other is after the event rolleyes

It's human nature!!
Apart from that there are GUM clinics that just open up and then immediately close down because of 1) lack of staff 2) too many clients waiting. It is NOT just a question of waiting a couple of hours FFS - get real.
Get real? :shock:
OK - let's get real....
It is a question of waiting a couple of hours if you go to a walk-in and can be arsed to arrive early (that is if you can't get an appointment).This may involve making a journey to a large hospital elsewhere or finding out which health centres offer sexual health checks. Yes, it does mean putting yourself out a couple of times per year.
Taking the risk that you are not infected is the alternative - of course this is not a risk you take purely with yourself... it involves everyone you have sexual contact with.
But if it is difficult to get regular check-ups - well that is OK, as these people who may also become infected will probably be people you get on with, friends or a partner perhaps - I am sure they will understand when they find out their condition is worse due to the delay in treatmentâ€¦ because one of their 'friends' found it too much trouble to make a journey. I am sure all concerned will be totally agreeable when they realise it would have involved catching a train or something to have found out any earlier what they had been infected with.
Yes - letâ€™s get real â€¦. Why are GUM clinic so busy? Oh yes, because STIâ€™s/STDâ€™s spread at a higher rate through people being ignorant or finding it too much trouble to have a check-up earlier before passing an infection on to even more people. Funny how it wonâ€™t be too much effort when their dick is on fire or they have green gunk oozing in their pants. But then not all STIâ€™s/STDâ€™s show symptoms immediately (i.e. within a week or two) some take months/years before the really nasty stuff is noticeable.
Oh and on another â€˜getting realâ€™ pointâ€¦
People will travel for hours to meet up with play-mates.
People will travel across the country to attend munches.
People will put themselves out to get the action.
Someone who can't be arsed to put themselves out to check that they are not risking their own health, as well as their 'friends', is a -----!(IMHO)
Or, alternatively, practice safe sex.
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.
.

7 Jul 2006

Quote by PoloLady
Oh and on another â€˜getting realâ€™ pointâ€¦
People will travel for hours to meet up with play-mates.
People will travel across the country to attend munches.
People will put themselves out to get the action.
Someone who can't be arsed to put themselves out to check that they are not risking their own health, as well as their 'friends', is a -----!(IMHO)

I'm lucky to work within easy walking distance to my local hospital so I put my lunch hour to good use every 3 to 4 months. I've lived in the 'sticks' but that didn't stop me.
I've found you only have trouble getting an appointment when you ring up and say I need one now (I had a 'scare' a few years ago but was 100% fine). When I go for a check-up I just make another appointment on my way out for next time.

7 Jul 2006

Quote by westerross
Or, alternatively, practice safe sex.
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.
.

Errr I think the idea is to do both! :doh:
Practice safe sex AND get regular checks.
I always practice safe sex so are you saying I don't need to get checked? rolleyes

7 Jul 2006

One question that you seem to have forgotten about.....................Do people actually READ the Guardian? dunno

7 Jul 2006

Quote by westerross
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

7 Jul 2006

I have to be honest, I find it ridiculous that people are complaining about the fact that it's such a long wait or hard slog to get an appt at a GUM clinic as an excuse for not bothering to do so!
FFS, yes, it can be a MAJOR pain in the arse trying to get an appt but don't you think you SHOULD? There are a few - few - clinics that do a walk in service and whilst you'll have a few hours wait to see someone, if you have one in your area I think it's worth it. That's what I do and I'm with PoloLady on this - people will spend hours going to meets or spend hours in an empty car park hoping for a meet so put the same effort into getting checked up!

7 Jul 2006

I am about to go to my local doc to arrange a STI MOT - no symptoms but I thought it would be a good idea to get a checkup and start a regular checkup pattern.
I'll let you know how it goes as regrads getting the appointment, time to wait etc.

7 Jul 2006

Quote by Too Hot
Did anyone else read the article on the rise of STDs in yesterday's (ie Tuesday) Guardian?
One aspect that I suspect many of us will find alarming is that it reckons that 40% of men who catch syphillis do so from oral sex. For better or worse, most of us regard unproteced oral as being a bit risky perhaps but not that risky.
Given that syphillis is a) pretty bad to get even though very treatable and b) rising at an alarming rate; should we be concerned?
Just wondering what others think,
John

Guardian !!??!!??
OK - 40% of men who catch syphillis - so how many men catch syphillis? How does that stat break down? What age group and demographic are they? How does it break down into sexual orientation and type of partner. Where is the qualificaton in this statement?
Sorry mate but that is a bollocks statement from a bollocks newspaper which on a slow news day means - useless hype -
If I were to say that over one hundred men a year catch syphillis and 40% of them catch syphillis from infected street prostitutes - would it have any relevance the fact that 40 men a year from the several hundred thousand that pay for sex catch syphillis? More so - how does that affect the swinging community?
OK what I have said is probably not true but what statistics and qualification are the Guardian using?
Well, I have to say I seldom read the paper. However, the approach you take seems to me to be more like sticking the old head deep into the sand.
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

7 Jul 2006

Quote by Sassy-Seren
One question that you seem to have forgotten about.....................Do people actually READ the Guardian?

Only when it's the only paper available in the coffee shop!!!
John

7 Jul 2006

Quote by dambuster

Just wondering what others think,
John

I think . . . . .
It highlights the need to be almost on first name terms with the staff at the clap clinic due to having regular checkups, and the strength of character to inform people you've had unprotected sex with if you catch a dose.
And there are a number of replies on here agreeing with you. I am one of them.
However.... according to the banner on the right as I type this, there are 492,451 members of the site. A fraction of these are active in the forum and can be, perhaps, generally assumed to be the ones more likely to follow the rules of swinging and sense? The rest, or even some of us here, do they get tested?
My own view is that most on here will regard oral as at most a little risky but not dangerous enough to practice safe sex, be it to male or female. Thus I raised it.

Quote by westerross
This is a very pertinent thread!!

Thanks, I thought so too although one or two here think I'm daft to raise it!
John