A recent study suggests that oral sex is unsafe.

The study involved exposing monkeys to SIV (an AIDS-like virus
from which HIV is probably derived). The experiments showed
that infection occurred orally with fewer virus particles than were
used in similar, controlled rectal experiments.

In effect, said Dr. Ruth M. Ruprecht, “this study shows that people
need to know that oral sex is not safe sex.”

The gay community should take this as a wake-up call that
conventional wisdom can sometimes be wrong. Regarding
oral sex, we cannot afford to wrong. Therefore we must
presume oral sex to be dangerous until proven otherwise.

An OUT article, published around two years ago, outlined a large study
which showed convincingly that a small but significant percentage of
people who *only* practiced oral sex seroconverted.

In fact, the study concluded (to the best of my recollection) that
having oral sex with a large number of infected partners will lead
to a non-trivial risk of contracting HIV infection, and that the only
sense in which the risk from sucking cock can be said to be “very low”
is when computed per exposure. Certainly it’s far less risky than
unprotected receptive anal intercourse, but the point was that if you
did it with enough partners your risk would be moderate. Another
disturbing finding was that stopping before orgasm did not
substantially reduce the risk of infection over swallowing.
Apparently, the infection is nearly as concentrated in pre-come, and
since the exposure is via the
gums and other mouth tissues, you’re actually exposed to pre-come for
much longer than to come (unless, of course, your partner is
particularly excited…)

The study also discovered a bias, or statistical “masking effect”
which caused the oral vector to escape detection up to that point.
In simple terms, whenever an interviewed HIV-positive person reported
having engaged in anal sex, that was declared to be the vector of the
(sexually-transmitted) infection, because it was already known to be
high-risk. These vectors were blamed even when other activities (e.g.
oral sex) were reported. Thus anal sex gets slightly more blame than
it deserves, and oral sex gets no blame at all. [The same situation
probably occurs with IV drug users who also engage in oral sex — it
is always blamed on the IV drug use even though a small percentage
might have been from the oral sex.) The problem is that apparently
nobody can figure out how much masking effect there is. So there’s
still legitimately the question of whether the risk is quite low or
just low, but it has been dishonest to day there is no risk for quite
some time now.

Well, no one CAN say–because that risk is dependent on many
variables. Presume, though, that we are talking about an HIV-negative
person sucking an HIV+ man’s cock. (The reverse, an HIV+ person
sucking an HIV- man’s cock may also have very minimal risk.)

The variables that can increase the risk for the cocksucker are

1) Tears/sores/bleeding gums in his mouth;
2) Tears/sores on the penis;
3)The man’s viral load–higher viral load will increase likelihood of
infection;
4) the number of times a guy goes down on HIV+ cock.
5) the extent of takingi in pre-cum or ejaculate–and again, how
frequently a person is exposed.

So the risk will increase with the greater frequency of exposure, with
these variables in mind. Thus, it’s a judgment call that each person
has to make. Erring on the side of safety is judicious but sucking
condoms ain’t exactly erotic (whereas anal sex with a condom can be).

Ultimately, though, stats go right the fuck out the window when it’s
your life. How many planes go down in a year? Doesn’t matter if
you’re on the one that crashes. Yet despite that, it doesn’t stop
people from flying!