CIM - are there degrees of risk?

[SlamBoy]

I suspect you are lying or forgetting something (sucking your/their fingers after fingering, more chance, but oral, little to no).

So when a respected punter contradicts your bullshit knowledge with an actual case of transmission that you say couldn't happen, it is NOT that you (as a fake 'scientist') could be wrong, but that HE is a LIAR or MISTAKEN.

GTFO of here you fraud. 

[HarryZZ]

The problem is that actual evidence is sparse, conflicting and unreliable and because this is the internet you get so many people giving opinions as facts which other believe and repost as facts, if you want the full details UKP is not the place to any more than some basic research.

And how the hell can somebody say that you can't catch anything from oral unless it's DT, as all the nasty stuff only lives in the back of your throat, like you could draw a line across your cock that you shouldn't go any deeper than and you'll definitely be okay, how the fuck would that work? As if the infected cells would only go so far up the throat, "stop here lads, we're not going any further up than that."

[cotton]

Plus something that occurs to me is that while it may be true that a regular woman might have bacteria mainly deep inside her pussy a working girl is naturally going to get bacteria more widely dispersed including to the entrance of her pussy as a result of getting repeatedly fucked , and if your the next guy in the queue and do RO you very well might come into contact with this bacteria .
+ Guys who catch diseases of hookers are probably less likely to volunteer the info for scientific case studies than other cases.

[James999]

I've worked in labs

As a cleaner?

Hidden Image/Members Only

[Zimbaman]

There you go. You do not even know the meaning of 'theory' when applied in the scientific context. I suggest you go and look it up.

'Theory' when used in the scientific context essentially means 'fact' not a 'hypothesis' - like: the THEORY of gravity, or the THEORY of evolution . . . there are many more examples.

Your lack of such basic scientific knowledge underpins your complete lack of credibility in this area. Please stop your bullshit pontificating. 

What are you talking about? Scientific theory doesn’t get proven. It gets established. Maybe you should look it up 

I’ve read tailseekers posts and find them informative and accurate. Clearly has scientific understanding. You clearly don’t. I say that with my own professional background 

[wristjob]

I would imagine there is more risk of death driving to punts, or the risk from ED drugs, than there is of any serious harm from STIs. Way more risk from smoking or drinking and as for that Poppers thread.... I believe the real risk of anything bad happening from punting (other than poverty) is way less than many things we do in this world. I would imagine being a professional escort and sucking cock on a regular basis has less risk than working in construction or many other industries.

DYOR if you want to know how much and decide how you feel about it.

[anyfucker]

A real mate who enjoys our fave sport is mates with a doctor
The doc also has a play now & again
Out for some drinks & the three of us were discussing guess what ? 
I was quizzing him on a few medical type things
He wasn't aware of a case of a bloke catching anything from RO

I've seen girlies use mouthwash post punt
This deffo helps as mentioned above
Best not some wanky cheap brand
Shows that they are clued up which is a positive
I take a small bottle in the motor & have a rinse around
It becomes habit forming, wether or not having done any kissing / RO, so i don't often forget
Some before & some after

Just because something is "almost unheard of " or your doc mate hasn't heard of anyone catching oral gonorrhoea from RO doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen.
I am aware of one escort catching oral gonorrhoea  from another escort who got it from fucking her boyfriend without a condom.
I am also aware of a punter who got oral gonorrhoea from RO.
When I asked, DSE told me they had a handful of cases (i.e. less than five) each year of punters who had it from RO.
So, unlikely but not impossible.
There is way less chance of being killed by a shark but it happens.

[MrMatrix]

What are you talking about? Scientific theory doesn’t get proven. It gets established. Maybe you should look it up 

I’ve read tailseekers posts and find them informative and accurate. Clearly has scientific understanding. You clearly don’t. I say that with my own professional background 

+1, I have no doubts that Tail seeker knows what she is taking about, I find her contributions on this topic very informative as do many other members.
I am no expert on this topic but she has a better understanding than I could ever have.

[SlamBoy]

What are you talking about? Scientific theory doesn’t get proven. It gets established. Maybe you should look it up 

I’ve read tailseekers posts and find them informative and accurate. Clearly has scientific understanding. You clearly don’t. I say that with my own professional background 

Where in my post did I use the word 'proven'??? Errr . . .  that's right, I didn't. Not once. So you are wrong. How embarrassing for you. 

You state the correct term is 'established'. I used the word 'fact'. If you are going to attempt to draw a distinction between something that is a 'fact' (my word) and something that is 'established' (your word) to try to row back on your calamitous error, then you are as much of a fool as Tailseeker.

The above clearly establishes the following:

(1) my understanding of the meaning of 'theory' in the context of science is correct (and you have even attested to it while trying to be a misguided hero);
 
(2) your understanding of basic comprehension and analytical skills are severely lacking (I hope to god you are not a scientist, on this display); and

(3) you shouldn't rush in to protect 'Tailseeker' like a little fluffy fanboy as you'll end up making yourself look very foolish in front of everyone on the board - as you just have.

She is an out and out fraud. And if you believe her, you are even more gullible than you have proven yourself to be in your embarrassingly misguided response to my reasoned and correct statement.

. . . and I say all of the above 'with my own professional background'.   

[SlamBoy]

Here's a little example for you from a reasonably well known scientist called Richard Dawkins. You might have heard of him. Or probably not.

It's called the FACT of Evolution

External Link/Members Only

 

[Zimbaman]

Where in my post did I use the word 'proven'??? Errr . . .  that's right, I didn't. Not once. So you are wrong. How embarrassing for you. 

You state the correct term is 'established'. I used the word 'fact'. If you are going to attempt to draw a distinction between something that is a 'fact' (my word) and something that is 'established' (your word) to try to row back on your calamitous error, then you are as much of a fool as Tailseeker.

The above clearly establishes the following:

(1) my understanding of the meaning of 'theory' in the context of science is correct (and you have even attested to it while trying to be a misguided hero);
 
(2) your understanding of basic comprehension and analytical skills are severely lacking (I hope to god you are not a scientist, on this display); and

(3) you shouldn't rush in to protect 'Tailseeker' like a little fluffy fanboy as you'll end up making yourself look very foolish in front of everyone on the board - as you just have.

She is an out and out fraud. And if you believe her, you are even more gullible than you have proven yourself to be in your embarrassingly misguided response to my reasoned and correct statement.

. . . and I say all of the above 'with my own professional background'.   

Please tell me you aren’t bringing out the old ‘white knight’ stick. It’s over used at best, but that’s ridiculous 

I can tell you are angry, so I will keep this brief. None of your post was correct. I specifically objected to your interpretation of theory. It was wrong. You said ‘theory means fact’. It doesn’t. Theories are supported by observable facts. This does not make the theory ‘fact’.

I’m not in the least embarrassed. Have a nice day 

[SlamBoy]

That's right. Richard Dawkins agrees with me about a 'theory' being a 'fact' in the context of science.

. . . And he doesn't agree with a fake prozzie scientist and her misguided little fluffy fanboy who are both completely wrong.

(FFS it's like having to deal with Holland all over again).

[Kev40ish]

That's right. Richard Dawkins agrees with me about a 'theory' being a 'fact' in the context of science.

. . . And he doesn't agree with a fake prozzie scientist and her misguided little fluffy fanboy who are both completely wrong.

(FFS it's like having to deal with Holland all over again).

Richard Dawkins is just using a more acceptable word that is easier for people to understand.

Theories are built up using facts, not the other way round.

Just because they are theories, doesn’t necessarily make them true, they are often superseded as more data  becomes available.

History is littered with incorrect theories..

[James999]

Could I just remind those debating the scientific knowledge and standing in the scientific community of the "lady" involved here, she SUCKS COCK FOR A LIVING 

[Kev40ish]

Could I just remind those debating the scientific knowledge and standing in the scientific community of the "lady" involved here, she SUCKS COCK FOR A LIVING 

But I’m sure she does it in a scientific way 

[ProtocolDroid]

As one or two others have observed, there's a risk in looking to UKP for reliable information on this sort of thing. When it comes to health, some decent places to check online are the good ol' NHS webpage and the Mayo Clinic. Both of these seem to be reasonably clear in their warmings around oral sex:

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

The suggestions on these pages would seem to suggest that there's no reason to doubt Scutty's story, and indeed given his history and contributions on here I wouldn't do that in the first place.

I only opt for OW these days. It's annoying, as OWO feels great and for me is the best way to achieve multiple pops in one session. However, the dangers associated with it, not just in terms of health but also the life I lead and the relations I have with other people, dwarf the rewards of OWO.

[SlamBoy]

Richard Dawkins is just using a more acceptable word that is easier for people to understand.

Theories are built up using facts, not the other way round.

Just because they are theories, doesn’t necessarily make them true, they are often superseded as more data  becomes available.

History is littered with incorrect theories..

 

----------------> the point ------------>

your head ->         

[Zimbaman]

----------------> the point ------------>

your head ->         

You really are looking a bit thick now 

[Kev40ish]

----------------> the point ------------>

your head ->         

The point is your talking bollocks. Well that’s my theory anyway - oh does that make it a fact 

[Zimbaman]

The point is your talking bollocks. Well that’s my theory anyway - oh does that make it a fact 

 

[Kev40ish]

As one or two others have observed, there's a risk in looking to UKP for reliable information on this sort of thing. When it comes to health, some decent places to check online are the good ol' NHS webpage and the Mayo Clinic. Both of these seem to be reasonably clear in their warmings around oral sex:

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

The suggestions on these pages would seem to suggest that there's no reason to doubt Scutty's story, and indeed given his history and contributions on here I wouldn't do that in the first place.

Totally agree, I would get my info from there too, and just be honest at the GUM clinic.

[Waterhouse]

I've always felt Tailseeker's posts to be helpul and informative. I for one welcome her input here on these type of topics, as do a lot of others I suspect.

The insights she provides coupled with firsthand info from the GUM and what I can read on the NHS webpages allow me to make my own well informed decisions.  All we can do is trust our own judgement and opt to sensibly reduce risk as best we can.

If you can't accept there is a risk, no matter how high or how minimal, then you should not be playing this game. Fullstop.

[mrfishyfoo]

Totally agree, I would get my info from there too, and just be honest at the GUM clinic.

My GUM weren't interested in swabbing my throat and arse etc and only offered me the basic piss and blood tests for C, G, S and H, until I told them I see pro$$ies. They were really interested in the "foreign" dishes I'd had off the punting menu.

I was then tested in every possible manner that they have, including for hepatitis and other exotic diseases, and have been ever since.

WHY ??? Because they've seen cases that have arisen through oral only.

[mrfishyfoo]

This is worth reading.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=131712.0

[mrfishyfoo]

That's right. Richard Dawkins agrees with me about a 'theory' being a 'fact' in the context of science.

. . . And he doesn't agree with a fake prozzie scientist and her misguided little fluffy fanboy who are both completely wrong.

(FFS it's like having to deal with Holland all over again).

Fucking hilarious and also very very wrong !!!!

Theories evolve as the "facts" that support them are superseded by NEW facts that now support them. 

[webpunter]

Crikey - i'm petrified
I'm gonna knock RO on the head & take up tiddlywinks instead
Never going in the sea again either
 

Just because something is "almost unheard of " or your doc mate hasn't heard of anyone catching oral gonorrhoea from RO doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen.
I am aware of one escort catching oral gonorrhoea  from another escort who got it from fucking her boyfriend without a condom.
I am also aware of a punter who got oral gonorrhoea from RO.
When I asked, DSE told me they had a handful of cases (i.e. less than five) each year of punters who had it from RO.
So, unlikely but not impossible.
There is way less chance of being killed by a shark but it happens.

[webpunter]

OWO is like playing russian roulette, with more cylinders than the average hand gun
How many cylinders depends on which burd & luck

With RO the odds - catching sumfink - are way way lower
Not zero
If RO is your thang best not to clean teeth within a couple of hours of punting adventures commencing
Clean em b4 & use mouthwash to freshen up
Same principle for FK / DFK

I only opt for OW these days. It's annoying, as OWO feels great and for me is the best way to achieve multiple pops in one session. However, the dangers associated with it, not just in terms of health but also the life I lead and the relations I have with other people, dwarf the rewards of OWO.

All a numbers game.  Do you feel lucky ?


Hidden Image/Members Only

[SlamBoy]

Fucking hilarious and also very very wrong !!!!

Theories evolve as the "facts" that support them are superseded by NEW facts that now support them. 

Yeah. Dawkins is wrong. And you are right. 

 

[mrfishyfoo]

Yeah. Dawkins is wrong. And you are right. 

 

Do you dispute the Theory of Evolution ?? 

[Waterhouse]

Yeah. Dawkins is wrong. And you are right. 

 

A theory is called a theory for the simple reason it is just that i.e. not a proven solid quantifiable fact.

You only have to look at the theory of relativity (general or special, take your pick), big bang theory, quatum theory, the theory of evolution etc. etc.... the list goes on. There are supporting facts and evidence for and behind all of these theories, however they remain just that, theories and not solidly proven fact in themselves.

[SlamBoy]

A theory is called a theory for the simple reason it is just that i.e. not a proven solid quantifiable fact.

You only have to look at the theory of relativity (general or special, take your pick), big bang theory, quatum theory, the theory of evolution etc. etc.... the list goes on. There are supporting facts and evidence for and behind all of these theories, however they remain just that, theories and not solidly proven fact in themselves.

I can't make you understand something that is clearly beyond your comprehension. I'll just leave you to wallow in your own limitations.

Back to the main point. 'Tailseeker' is a complete fraud, doesn't understand science (something quite prevalent here it seems), has made demonstrably false assertions; and talks utter bullshit.

The end.

[Zimbaman]

Yeah. Dawkins is wrong. And you are right. 

 

That’s not what Dawkins said  he is refuting any possibility that evolution is wrong. For simple people that won’t accept scientific consensus. It’s still a theory though, supported by overwhelming evidence.

[SlamBoy]

Do you dispute the Theory of Evolution ?? 

  Have you actually read a single word I have said? Or even watched that video? Clearly not. You come across as someone who has jumped into the middle of something, without a clue what is it about, and you've just started blabbing. Very bizarre.

You sound like this guy. And you are making as much sense as him too:

External Link/Members Only

[SlamBoy]

That’s not what Dawkins said  he is refuting any possibility that evolution is wrong. For simple people that won’t accept scientific consensus. It’s still a theory though, supported by overwhelming evidence.

I just can't anymore. I cannot make you understand the subtlety of a point. I can't. 

[mrfishyfoo]

That’s not what Dawkins said  he is refuting any possibility that evolution is wrong. For simple people that won’t accept scientific consensus. It’s still a theory though, supported by overwhelming evidence.

EXACTLY !!! 

[mrfishyfoo]

Have you actually read a single word I have said? Or even watched that video? Clearly not. You come across as someone who has jumped into the middle of something, without a clue what is it about, and you've just started blabbing. Very bizarre.

You sound like this guy. And you are making as much sense as him too:

External Link/Members Only

Have you read Dawkins books ?? Do you have the intellect to comprehend WTF Dawkins is trying to convey ??

[SlamBoy]

Have you read Dawkins books ?? Do you have the intellect to comprehend WTF Dawkins is trying to convey ??

I actually read biology at New College, Oxford where he is a fellow. So, in answer to your questions: yeah.

You, on the other hand, not so much,

[mrfishyfoo]

I actually read biology at New College, Oxford where he is a fellow. So, in answer to your questions: yeah.

You, on the other hand, not so much,

How nice for you. 

Yet another righteous fucking student that thinks he's better than us plebs because of his place in society. 

You sir know fuck all about me or my place in society. 

[SlamBoy]

How nice for you. 

Yet another righteous fucking student that thinks he's better than us plebs because of his place in society. 

You sir know fuck all about me or my place in society. 

Nor do I wish to sir 

[mrfishyfoo]

Nor do I wish to sir 

Doesn't change the FACT that a THEORY is BASED on FACTS and IS NOT in it's own right a FACT !!!

[SlamBoy]

Doesn't change the FACT that a THEORY is BASED on FACTS and IS NOT in it's own right a FACT !!!

 

[SlamBoy]

Doesn't change the FACT that a THEORY is BASED on FACTS and IS NOT in it's own right a FACT !!!

Go jump off a building for me. You know, the 'theory' of gravity isn't a fact, according to you. You'll be fine.

 

[sparkus]

But I’m sure she does it in a scientific way 

She blinded him with science.

Back to topic... in my experience I've caught more STIs from unprotected oral off civvies than WGs.  It's the last time I insert my dick into the drunken mouth of a neighbour's sister at a new year's eve party, I'll tell you.

[SlamBoy]

She blinded him with science.

Back to topic... in my experience I've caught more STIs from unprotected oral off civvies than WGs.  It's the last time I insert my dick into the drunken mouth of a neighbour's sister at a new year's eve party, I'll tell you.

i.e Tailseeker talks bullshit.

[wylie anchor]

I actually read biology at New College, Oxford where he is a fellow.

You actually read a book, now you are an expert on all things!!!
From you postings I have formulated a theory that you a twat. Does that make it a fact?

[Waterhouse]

Back to the main point. 'Tailseeker' is a complete fraud, doesn't understand science (something quite prevalent here it seems), has made demonstrably false assertions; and talks utter bullshit.

The end.

Put her 'ignore' then.  The rest of us will continue to benefit from her contributions which unlike some people's, are actually helpful and informative.

[mrfishyfoo]

Go jump off a building for me. You know, the 'theory' of gravity isn't a fact, according to you. You'll be fine.

 

Typical twat like answer from "someone" that has painted himself into a corner.

FWIW I've jumped off plenty thank you. 

Define the nature of the building first if you will please and the surface that the landing is to be made upon. Additionally define what if any PPE is available and then I'll assess the risk.

Afteral it's not the theory of gravity that's at issue here it's the landing that will do the damage, if any. 

[Waterhouse]

Go jump off a building for me. You know, the 'theory' of gravity isn't a fact, according to you. You'll be fine.

 

What was it you said about limited comprehension? 

[sparkus]

i.e Tailseeker talks bullshit.

Just my experience, of course.

Anyway, I notice Jessica69 or whatever she's called now regularly posts pics of the throat scans she gets done at some private clinic.

[Zimbaman]

I actually read biology at New College, Oxford where he is a fellow. So, in answer to your questions: yeah.

You, on the other hand, not so much,

I’ll never understand why underachievers claim to be more than they are. I doubt you have ever managed more than GCSEs. The FACTs speak for themselves here. Everyone else can understand that a theory in itself is not a fact. You can’t. There really is no more to say...