Ranking sexual acts by risk of contracting an STI

[val33]

STDs via giving oral is definitely real. Many years ago I saw a girl in Germany, the only thing I did was lick her pussy, she had no contact with me, then the fire alarm in the brothel went off and we evacuated, I didn't go back in to finish the service. After the worst sore throat of my life, I tested positive for gonorrhea in the throat 3 weeks later.

[mr.bluesky]

jh75. Ask your wife. I'm sure she will be happy to enlighten you 

[Southendlothario]

My take on it:
With recieving OWO which also covers CIM, there is a chance of catching something along the lines of chlamydia(?) gonorrhea or hpv. Not sure its a huge chance though? Giving Oral, pretty much the same i think? With DFK, not so sure about STDs as i think youll find youve got more chance of catching a cold. BB sex, vaginal is bad enough but anal even more so, youre of your head thinking about it with a woman that probably has sex with multiple men every day, as if she'll do it with you and tells you she doesn't usually do that, she tells every punter the same thing. That one would risk the full bifta. HIV, Hepatitis, Syphilis, Chlamydia, Gonhorea, Warts, the lot.

[Viper90]

You're right, that was time wasted replying to negativity. When somebody starts gutter-sniping it can be tempting to start gutter sniping back - then you both end up in the gutter. I've decided not to reply to people who are negative and off topic... I've come to the conclusion that they're actually looking for a tennis match of gutter sniping. It may be attention seeking... watch i bet following my one reply here there will be a few gutter snipes coming in after me. Ignoring them is the best remedy. I certainly am not going to reply to them - that's what they want

I'm a little bit sad that you're doubting me because of the baying mob.. I can assure you that I am genuine. And once again, your mature response shows your intelligence; i.e. even if he is lying, whats wrong with giving good advice?? Do people really think I'm sat here chuckling thinking 'Aha - I finally got Strawberry to give me some good advice, hahahaha' - the notion is quite frankly idiotic. Your responses are certainly useful for me (and others too I think). I will read the links, etc provided.. and maybe if I can summarise, will come back to this thread to summarise the do's and don'ts as I have understood them.

By the way, just got back from an awesome massage with extras.. will post a review she's awesome. My favourite so far

+1

There are ways of wording thoughts/opinions, and some people on here can air on the side of keyboard warrior when articulating said opinions which can cause people to become defensive, which then results in you looking like the bad guy.

[scutty brown]

STDs via giving oral is definitely real. Many years ago I saw a girl in Germany, the only thing I did was lick her pussy, she had no contact with me, then the fire alarm in the brothel went off and we evacuated, I didn't go back in to finish the service. After the worst sore throat of my life, I tested positive for gonorrhea in the throat 3 weeks later.

I got it in my throat, as you did, via RO.
The annoying thing was, the medics at the gum centre more or less called me a liar, saying it was virtually impossible to contract that way as it needed direct back-of-throat contact with a penis. In other words the accepted wisdom was that I'd could only have caught it from another bloke. Told them that was a load of rubbish but don't think they believed me.

[sheffielder]

No one has an interest in the thread other than how ridiculously funny the whole concept is to try and give a % chance of catching an STD by a form of sexual activity. Not even the NHS website gives you a % chance. It will list what could constitute a risk, but putting a % chance to it is daft!

NHS list of risky activities:

Sex activities and risk. Find out about the risks of getting a sexually transmitted infection (STI) from different sexual activities.

In nearly every case, condoms will help protect you against this risk. Learn about the risks associated with various sexual activities.

Vaginal penetrative sex
This is when a man's penis enters a woman's vagina.

If a condom is not used, there's a risk of pregnancy and getting or passing on STIs, including:

chlamydia
genital herpes
genital warts
gonorrhoea
HIV
syphilis
Infections can be passed on even if the penis doesn't fully enter the vagina or the man doesn't ejaculate (come). This is because infections can be present in pre-ejaculate fluid (pre-come) and some can be passed on when your genital area touches another person's genitals.

Even shallow insertion of the penis into the vagina (sometimes called dipping) carries risks for both partners. Using a condom can help protect against infections.

Preventing pregnancy
There are many methods of contraception to prevent pregnancy, including the contraceptive injection, contraceptive patch, contraceptive implant and combined pill.

Bear in mind using condoms is the only method of contraception that protects against both pregnancy and STIs, so always use a condom as well as your chosen method of contraception.

Find out what contraception is, including the 15 different methods.

Anal penetrative sex
This is when a man's penis enters (penetrates) his partner's anus. Men and women might choose to have anal sex whether they're gay or straight.

Anal sex has a higher risk of spreading STIs than many other types of sexual activity. This is because the lining of the anus is thin and can easily be damaged, which makes it more vulnerable to infection.

STIs and other infections that can be passed on during anal sex include:

chlamydia
genital herpes
genital warts
gonorrhoea
HIV
syphilis
hepatitis C
Using stronger condoms designed for anal sex helps protect against STIs.

If you use lubricants, only use water-based ones, which are available from pharmacies. Oil-based lubricants such as lotion and moisturiser can cause condoms to break or fail.

Get tips on using condoms properly.

Oral sex
Oral sex involves sucking or licking the vagina, penis or anus.

There's a risk of getting or passing on STIs if you're giving or receiving oral sex. The risk increases if either of you has sores or cuts around the mouth, genitals or anus. Avoid brushing your teeth or using dental floss before oral sex because it can cause your gums to bleed.

Viruses and bacteria, which may be present in semen, vaginal fluid or blood, can travel more easily into a partner's body through breaks in the skin.

Generally, the risk of infection is lower when you receive oral sex than when you give someone oral sex. However, it is still possible for STIs to be passed on.

STIs and other infections that can be passed on through oral sex include:

chlamydia
herpes – type 1 and type 2, which can cause cold sores around the mouth and herpes infection of the genitals or anus
genital warts
gonorrhoea
hepatitis A, hepatitis B and hepatitis C
HIV
syphilis
If you have a cold sore and you give your partner oral sex, you can infect them with the herpes virus. Similarly, herpes can pass from the genitals to the mouth.

The risk of passing on or getting HIV during oral sex is lower than anal or vaginal sex without a condom. However, the risk is increased if there are any cuts or sores in or around the mouth, genitals or anus.

You can make oral sex safer by using a condom as it acts as a barrier between the mouth and the penis.

Choose a condom that does not contain spermicide, because spermicide can increase the risk of passing on HIV. Also, make sure it has the CE mark or BSI kite mark, which means the condom meets high safety standards.

Fingering
This is when someone inserts one or more fingers into their partner's vagina or anus. It's not common for fingering to spread STIs, but there are still risks.

If there are any cuts or sores on the fingers, no matter how small, the risk of passing on or getting an STI increases.

Fingering can also spread small amounts of poo which can cause the STI shigella. Washing your hands after fingering can reduce the change of this.

Some people gradually insert the whole hand into a partner's vagina or anus; this is called fisting. Not everyone chooses to do this.

Again, the risk of infection is higher if either person has any cuts or broken skin that comes into contact with their partner. You can lower the risk by wearing surgical gloves.

Sex toys
This covers a wide range of items, including vibrators and sex dolls. Any object used in sex can be called a sex toy, whether it's designed for this use or not.

It's important to keep sex toys clean. If you're sharing sex toys, make sure you wash them between each use and always put a new condom on them each time.

Sharing sex toys has risks, including getting and passing on STIs such as chlamydia, syphilis and herpes. If there are any cuts or sores around the vagina, anus or penis and there's blood, there's an increased risk of passing on hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV.

Urine and faeces
Some people choose to urinate (pee) on a partner as part of their sex life. There's a risk of passing on an infection if the person who's being urinated on has broken skin.

Faeces (poo) carries more of a risk. This is because it contains organisms that can cause illness or infection, for example shigella. This is a bacterial infection of the intestine that causes severe diarrhoea and is often mistaken for food poisoning. It can be caught during oral-anal sex and giving oral sex after anal sex when even a tiny amount of infected poo can get into the mouth and cause infection.

Although faeces don't usually contain HIV (unless they contain blood infected with HIV), they can contain the hepatitis A virus. There's a chance of infection when faeces come into contact with broken skin, the mouth or the eyes.

Cutting
Some people choose to cut their own skin or their partner's skin as part of sex. This is also called piquerism. There's a risk of infections such as HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C being passed from person to person through broken skin.

No sexual contact is needed. Simply getting blood on a partner is enough to transmit these infections.

To lower the chances of infection, cutting and piercing equipment should be sterilised and not shared.

The percentage risks of getting infected from specific sex acts is not "ridiculous". It is actually quite well studied and there are plenty of research papers kicking about on the chances of getting infected from various pathogens after intercourse with a know infected partner. It does get abit ridiculous when you are try to calculate a percentage risk from a sexual partner of unknown status. There are just too meny variables.

The NHS don't comment on percentage risks because most lay people will misinterprate the information or it could possibly encourage some people to make bad decisions on false assumptions.

[sheffielder]

My take on it:
With recieving OWO which also covers CIM, there is a chance of catching something along the lines of chlamydia(?) gonorrhea or hpv. Not sure its a huge chance though? Giving Oral, pretty much the same i think? With DFK, not so sure about STDs as i think youll find youve got more chance of catching a cold. BB sex, vaginal is bad enough but anal even more so, youre of your head thinking about it with a woman that probably has sex with multiple men every day, as if she'll do it with you and tells you she doesn't usually do that, she tells every punter the same thing. That one would risk the full bifta. HIV, Hepatitis, Syphilis, Chlamydia, Gonhorea, Warts, the lot.

"gonorrhoeae is fairly easily transmitted: the estimated probability of penile-to-vaginal transmission is approximately 50% per sex act, and of vaginal-to-penile transmission is approximately 20% per act.1–3 Probabilities of per-condomless act transmission during oral (63% urethral-to-pharyngeal and 9% pharyngeal-to-urethral) and anal sex (84% urethral-to-rectal and 2% rectal-to-urethral) have been estimated from mathematical models.4"

External Link/Members Only

[webpunter]

Actually, I didn't write this in the review but when I went in and paid the receptionist £40 there's a big sign that says 'No sexual services'
Now there obviously was.. I'm not sure if I should've wrote a review about someone who isn't publicly advertising sexual services. Like, what if someone she knows sees it?

It seems so obvious now that I shouldnt have written the review. Mods can someone please delete that review pls?? Ive probably broken a forum rule here? (unintentionally)

How big was the sign ?
Like would it be reasonable for you to have missed it ?
Especially on the 1st visit
Just trying to help

[Doc Holliday]

The percentage risks of getting infected from specific sex acts is not "ridiculous". It is actually quite well studied and there are plenty of research papers kicking about on the chances of getting infected from various pathogens after intercourse with a know infected partner. It does get abit ridiculous when you are try to calculate a percentage risk from a sexual partner of unknown status. There are just too meny variables.

Exactly so. You can attempt to provide comparative data of transmission risk firstly for specific STI’s and then adjusted in relation to specific sexual acts, but only if one person is infected and also knowing what they are infected with.

External Link/Members Only

But irrespective of that not being what the OP said, I would suggest this data, whilst undoubtedly interesting to academics and healthcare personnel, is of little practical significance to those engaging in unprotected sex.

I could go out tomorrow and have vaginal sex without a condom with twenty different people and if none of them are infected then my actual risk is zero. If the first one is infected with Chlamydia the commonest STI then my risk is perhaps around 5%. If Gonnorhea then as you point out in your other post the risk is higher. This calculated risk will then be adjusted depending on the sexual activity, gender, whether giver receiver etc. This is then subject to other variables such as ethnicity and individual host response etc.

As I posted earlier in the thread

The question asked is seriously flawed .....

The subject itself is both very simple in terms of 'the basics', but exceedingly complex in the detail especially in terms of measuring and quantifying.

Everyone should know the basics and it doesn't require speaking to a medical professional, or asking SP's or punters. Google is your friend.

Comparative risks without values are much more helpful, ie anal sex is generally greater risk than vaginal, which in turn is greater risk than oral sex etc. This is why, as you pointed out, the NHS information is simple and practical, which is all that is required for the target audience.

However you cannot even attempt such complex calculations, without knowing the exact status of the other person and if you knew that they were infected, you probably wouldn’t have sex with them, or if you did you would ensure you used a condom for all sexual activity to significantly reduce the risk together with testing.

In effect this is the default position anyway ie that you assume the other person is infected with at least one pathogen and practice safe sex … or don’t and take your chances accordingly, but trying to put a figure on an individual risk is of little practical importance to the participants. 

[stampjones]

A list of relative numerical risks (which I think is what OP wants) is fairly trivial to think of conceptually. The risk of getting a STI from any particular activity is the number of times someone got an STI from said activity divided by the number of people who indulged in that activity over a given time period. If you calculate this number for two activities the relative risk is one divided by the other. If you divide a whole list of activities by the same base activity you get a list. Simples.

The trouble with that is the first number (ie the risk of getting an STI from a particular activity) is impossible to calculate accurately. If you were interested in calculating the relative risk of flying in different airliners then it would be easy because the number of crashes and total number of flights for any type of aircraft are easily determined. For STIs both numbers are unknown. They are also impossible to accurately estimate. So its impossible to calculate the relative risks. That’s why no-one can give you the list you want. Anyone doing so is just making it up.

Without those numbers you cant even come up with an ordered list with no percentages. Its all just guessing. Now you can probably imagine that having sex with a condom is less risky than doing it without so you can order those easily enough, but is protected anal more or less risky than OWO? No-one knows for sure because the numbers you need to accurately state an answer are unknown.

So ultimately all you can do personally is come up with your own risk assessment that works for you. After all it’s you who is taking the risk. If you 100% dont want to catch an STI, dont have any sexual contact with anyone ever. Otherwise do some reading around the facts, the available data, the recommendations from medical professionals and decide what risks you are willing to take for the pleasure you get in return. For some that will mean doing anal bareback with heroin addicted street whores is absolutely fine, for others it will mean no contact without their entire body being wrapped in two layers of rubber. There are no right or wrong choices, only what works for you. But whatever you choose, get tested regularly for your own benefit and that of everyone else so that if anything does go wrong you can take appropriate action.

[PumpDump]

The percentage risks of getting infected from specific sex acts is not "ridiculous". It is actually quite well studied and there are plenty of research papers kicking about on the chances of getting infected from various pathogens after intercourse with a know infected partner. It does get abit ridiculous when you are try to calculate a percentage risk from a sexual partner of unknown status. There are just too meny variables.

The NHS don't comment on percentage risks because most lay people will misinterprate the information or it could possibly encourage some people to make bad decisions on false assumptions.

It wouldn't be the first time the NHS withheld information from people, we are too dumb to assess risk and make our own decisions. We need the government to think for us and protect us. 

[Doc Holliday]

It wouldn't be the first time the NHS withheld information from people, we are too dumb to assess risk and make our own decisions.

I'll tell you this much, bareback is not 20 times more risky than oral without. I would put them on the same level.

[advent2016]

Being relatively new to the game and never having had an STI I feel like my knowledge is lacking in this department.

A good starting place might be the NHS website
External Link/Members Only

Sorry if someone had already posted this

[PumpDump]

How many more times risk is bareback vaginal sex than bare oral sex? Can you answer it?

[tp69]

"gonorrhoeae is fairly easily transmitted: the estimated probability of penile-to-vaginal transmission is approximately 50% per sex act, and of vaginal-to-penile transmission is approximately 20% per act.1–3 Probabilities of per-condomless act transmission during oral (63% urethral-to-pharyngeal and 9% pharyngeal-to-urethral) and anal sex (84% urethral-to-rectal and 2% rectal-to-urethral) have been estimated from mathematical models.4"

External Link/Members Only

For the last year I try avoid any posts on UKP other than reviews simply because of how aggressively members attack each other. Like a dog with a bone.

Yes, the OP is likely very young and inexperienced, but he was trying to understand the risk of various activities, and admitted his list would be way off the mark, but threw it out as an example, hoping someone could clarify.

I would assume he meant what the % risk is if the SP you're interacting with HAS each of the relevant diseases. So if I had RO with an SP that has the Clap, what would the % risk be that I would contract it. I don't think he was asking for the percentage chance if the person wasn't infected as that isn't particularly useful.

Instead of just having an adult conversation and explaining why it is so difficult to provide an answer, and perhaps leading it into something useful, a number of members just go on the offensive, telling him how stupid he is.

And yet, as per this post, there are studies on exactly this, whether the detail is known to us or not. The reality is that a percentage does exist, whether it is known or not, so why harass him for asking.

OP, hope you've got the info you need. Personally I accept the risk, but am pretty careful during punts with hygiene, and get tested every few months. I'm not sexually active much in civvy life so I'm not risking anyone else's health, which is where the more complex risk lies IMO. You need to decide what your tolerance is as it's difficult to quantify, but there are a lot of guys punting, and the risk is seemingly fairly low in terms of percentages.

[Viper90]

For the last year I try avoid any posts on UKP other than reviews simply because of how aggressively members attack each other. Like a dog with a bone.

Yes, the OP is likely very young and inexperienced, but he was trying to understand the risk of various activities, and admitted his list would be way off the mark, but threw it out as an example, hoping someone could clarify.

I would assume he meant what the % risk is if the SP you're interacting with HAS each of the relevant diseases. So if I had RO with an SP that has the Clap, what would the % risk be that I would contract it. I don't think he was asking for the percentage chance if the person wasn't infected as that isn't particularly useful.

Instead of just having an adult conversation and explaining why it is so difficult to provide an answer, and perhaps leading it into something useful, a number of members just go on the offensive, telling him how stupid he is.

And yet, as per this post, there are studies on exactly this, whether the detail is known to us or not. The reality is that a percentage does exist, whether it is known or not, so why harass him for asking.

OP, hope you've got the info you need. Personally I accept the risk, but am pretty careful during punts with hygiene, and get tested every few months. I'm not sexually active much in civvy life so I'm not risking anyone else's health, which is where the more complex risk lies IMO. You need to decide what your tolerance is as it's difficult to quantify, but there are a lot of guys punting, and the risk is seemingly fairly low in terms of percentages.

Couldnt agree more. Very well said.

[Doc Holliday]

For the last year I try avoid any posts on UKP other than reviews simply because of how aggressively members attack each other. Like a dog with a bone.

Curious then that you decided to read this one? Did you read it in its entirity? Did you also read this one from the same time? https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=386737.msg3936819#msg3936819

There is some validity with regard to the aggression, and although it is far less than it used to be, it is unavoidable on forums. However in this particular case the OP was always looking for a fight and there is no doubt in my mind he was trolling. He was linked to information quite early on, but rather than spend time reading it, he chose instead to be confrontational.

[Doc Holliday]

How many more times risk is bareback vaginal sex than bare oral sex? Can you answer it?

Apologies for late reply.

In line with previous posts such a blanket question cannot be given an answer in terms of an actual comparative figure/percentage due to so many variables in particular the type of STI.
 
In general terms OWO is described as a ‘significantly’ lower risk than unprotected vaginal sex.

External Link/Members Only

Advice on oral sex

Human papillomavirus (HPV), HSV, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, syphilis, HIV, hepatitis B (HBV) and possibly hepatitis C are transmissible through oro-genital sex. The risks associated with fellatio are likely to be greater than those with cunnilingus but oral sex is associated with significantly less risk of STI transmission than vaginal or anal sex.
 
For HIV and viral infections other than HSV, available evidence suggests the risk to the oral partner is greater than that to the genital partner.

The risk of HIV transmission through oral sex remains unclear, with data suggesting 2.6–8% of cases in MSM may be attributable to oral sex.

Condom use for oral sex is very low in all groups studied so while routinely advocating condom use for oral sex is unrealistic, oral sex should not be promoted as risk free.
Practitioners report an extremely low level of uptake and use of dental dams.

Recommendations

Safer sex advice should include information on the risks of oral sex, recognizing that individuals must make an informed decision on the level of risk that is acceptable to them, and supporting pragmatic alternative risk reduction techniques.
 
The risk of transmission of  bacterial and viral STIs, including HIV, applies to both oral and genital partners but the risk to the genital partner is thought to be considerably lower.

The risks of transmission associated with oral sex are (considerably) lower than for unprotected vaginal or anal sex except in the case of HSV-1.

Advice on further reducing risk includes: 
Avoiding oral sex with ejaculation reduces the risk of HIV and possibly other infections
Insertive fellatio is lower risk than receptive
Avoiding brushing teeth or flossing before having oral sex reduces risk of HIV and possibly other infections
Avoiding oral sex if you have oral cuts or sores, or a sore throat.
Using condoms for fellatio and dental dams for cunnilingus and oro-anal contact


Whilst unprotected oral is generally lower risk, it is far from no risk and there is a tendency within sex work in the UK to underestimate the true level of risk it poses   

[PumpDump]

Apologies for late reply.

In line with previous posts such a blanket question cannot be given an answer in terms of an actual comparative figure/percentage due to so many variables in particular the type of STI.
 
In general terms OWO is described as a ‘significantly’ lower risk than unprotected vaginal sex.

External Link/Members Only

Advice on oral sex

Human papillomavirus (HPV), HSV, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, syphilis, HIV, hepatitis B (HBV) and possibly hepatitis C are transmissible through oro-genital sex. The risks associated with fellatio are likely to be greater than those with cunnilingus but oral sex is associated with significantly less risk of STI transmission than vaginal or anal sex.
 
For HIV and viral infections other than HSV, available evidence suggests the risk to the oral partner is greater than that to the genital partner.

The risk of HIV transmission through oral sex remains unclear, with data suggesting 2.6–8% of cases in MSM may be attributable to oral sex.

Condom use for oral sex is very low in all groups studied so while routinely advocating condom use for oral sex is unrealistic, oral sex should not be promoted as risk free.
Practitioners report an extremely low level of uptake and use of dental dams.

Recommendations

Safer sex advice should include information on the risks of oral sex, recognizing that individuals must make an informed decision on the level of risk that is acceptable to them, and supporting pragmatic alternative risk reduction techniques.
 
The risk of transmission of  bacterial and viral STIs, including HIV, applies to both oral and genital partners but the risk to the genital partner is thought to be considerably lower.

The risks of transmission associated with oral sex are (considerably) lower than for unprotected vaginal or anal sex except in the case of HSV-1.

Advice on further reducing risk includes: 
Avoiding oral sex with ejaculation reduces the risk of HIV and possibly other infections
Insertive fellatio is lower risk than receptive
Avoiding brushing teeth or flossing before having oral sex reduces risk of HIV and possibly other infections
Avoiding oral sex if you have oral cuts or sores, or a sore throat.
Using condoms for fellatio and dental dams for cunnilingus and oro-anal contact


Whilst unprotected oral is generally lower risk, it is far from no risk and there is a tendency within sex work in the UK to underestimate the true level of risk it poses   

Interesting, so they are saying the risk of contracting STIs from oral sex is considerable lower (but not risk free) than vaginal or anal sex, except for herpes, which I assume is a similar risk.

Thanks for posting that.

[tp69]

Curious then that you decided to read this one? Did you read it in its entirity? Did you also read this one from the same time? https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=386737.msg3936819#msg3936819

There is some validity with regard to the aggression, and although it is far less than it used to be, it is unavoidable on forums. However in this particular case the OP was always looking for a fight and there is no doubt in my mind he was trolling. He was linked to information quite early on, but rather than spend time reading it, he chose instead to be confrontational.

I was bored and had a browse, and as is clear, it was a bad idea yet again. Sticking to reviews tends to be simpler for me personally. I didn't read the other post and will probably avoid doing so as I get a bit wound up when people are being needlessly attacked.

I agree that he replied too many times, but members like LewisJones and Lou were pretty out of line in their attacks on him. The OP did try repeatedly to ask people to just move along if they weren't interested in the topic, whereas every rebuttal continued to denigrate him. At the core, he's trying to find information on a serious topic, however misguided some may have found his phrasing.

New members or those new to the activity are always going to be nervous about the risks, so if someone phrases something in the wrong way, or because they lack enough knowledge to do so correctly, doesn't require numerous people to attack him. It's easy enough to scroll past, kindness costs nothing.

And I agree, Davie and a couple others gave him good links and refs to follow. These posts would just be so much more pleasant if people could chill and be constructive.

[Doc Holliday]

Interesting, so they are saying the risk of contracting STIs from oral sex is considerable lower (but not risk free) than vaginal or anal sex, except for herpes, which I assume is a similar risk.

They are distinguishing between HSV1 and HSV2. HSV1 is lies dormant in nerve ganglia of the head and neck and will normally produce oro/facial lesions (cold sores) This can then be passed on to others by close contact eg kissing to also produce oral lesions. HSV2 will reside in the nerve ganglia of the lower spine and will normally produce lesions in the genital area (genital herpes) and is considred to be sexually transmitted.

However there there is cross over and HSV1 can also be produce genital lesions and to a lesser extent HSV2 may also produce oral lesions. In both cases they are then deemed to be STIs. HSV1 is therefore a greater risk with oral sex and HSV2 with genital to genital contact.

It is important to remember that condoms only provide quite limited protection with those STI's which are primarily transmitted by skin to skin contact such as HSV, HPV (genital warts) and syphilis.

[Doc Holliday]

I was bored and had a browse, and as is clear, it was a bad idea yet again. Sticking to reviews tends to be simpler for me personally. I didn't read the other post and will probably avoid doing so as I get a bit wound up when people are being needlessly attacked.

I agree that he replied too many times, but members like LewisJones and Lou were pretty out of line in their attacks on him. The OP did try repeatedly to ask people to just move along if they weren't interested in the topic, whereas every rebuttal continued to denigrate him. At the core, he's trying to find information on a serious topic, however misguided some may have found his phrasing.

New members or those new to the activity are always going to be nervous about the risks, so if someone phrases something in the wrong way, or because they lack enough knowledge to do so correctly, doesn't require numerous people to attack him. It's easy enough to scroll past, kindness costs nothing.

And I agree, Davie and a couple others gave him good links and refs to follow. These posts would just be so much more pleasant if people could chill and be constructive.

Once again I am not disagreeing with many of your general points, and at first I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but it became obvious in his case he would prefer confrontation rather than take advice. The second thread should you read it will confirm this. Certain posters that you mention do have a tendency to be deliberetely confrontational but are just best ignored 

EDIT I should add that this was someone who in his first sentence said he had never had an STI, but also goes on to say he had never been tested. Rather than then delve in the complex issues around risk factors using figures which have no meaning, people should ensure they have a basic understanding of sexual health first. You don't need UKP to gather that knowledge.

[daviemac]

I was bored and had a browse, and as is clear, it was a bad idea yet again. Sticking to reviews tends to be simpler for me personally. I didn't read the other post and will probably avoid doing so as I get a bit wound up when people are being needlessly attacked.

I agree that he replied too many times, but members like LewisJones and Lou were pretty out of line in their attacks on him. The OP did try repeatedly to ask people to just move along if they weren't interested in the topic, whereas every rebuttal continued to denigrate him. At the core, he's trying to find information on a serious topic, however misguided some may have found his phrasing.

New members or those new to the activity are always going to be nervous about the risks, so if someone phrases something in the wrong way, or because they lack enough knowledge to do so correctly, doesn't require numerous people to attack him. It's easy enough to scroll past, kindness costs nothing.

And I agree, Davie and a couple others gave him good links and refs to follow. These posts would just be so much more pleasant if people could chill and be constructive.

I have to disagree with you about this thread, I've reread the start and he was given sound advice along with it being explained that the idea of percentages doesn't work but his response was basically if you don't agree with him don't comment. this dragged on over 4 pages and the main issue was him not accepting the facts and advice given. Only one person on the whole thread had anything positive on the subject.

I posted this. -

Best advice I can give you is take a step back, take time to look through the forum and get a feel of how the place works before posting again.

He didn't, and his response was. -

Sorry Mod, I know you told me to button up.. I'm just gonna put a few people in their place first. If thats OK. In the long run it's better... because they will think twice before taking threads off  on a tangent

This was despite him being told if he thought anything was out of order to report it. It isn't his place to 'put people in their place' or to try and alter the direction of a thread, that's what mods are for.

He also earned himself a temp ban on another thread due to a similar attitude but that time for not accepting and trying to interpret the rules to suit himself.

Some people just can't help themselves they have to be right no matter how wrong they are.

[tp69]

This was despite him being told if he thought anything was out of order to report it. It isn't his place to 'put people in their place' or to try and alter the direction of a thread, that's what mods are for.

He also earned himself a temp ban on another thread due to a similar attitude but that time for not accepting and trying to interpret the rules to suit himself.

Some people just can't help themselves they have to be right no matter how wrong they are.

Fair enough. I agree he didn't handle it well.