Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mrdave

A-levels And Stds

11 posts in this topic

Basically I would like to know what the risks are of unprotected anal for catching STDs?

I assume it is not as high (as bb intercourse) due to conditions not being as favourable for bacteria to get a hold than the vagina, but I really don't know.

So can anyone answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's far, far more risky, due to the fact that the rectal lining is extremely thin and fragile which makes damage in the form of abrasions or tears much more likely, especially if inadequate lubrication is used since there isn't any natural lube unlike with vaginal penetration. This means there is a much higher chance of mucous membranes coming into contact with blood which passes on any infections a lot more efficiently than either vaginal fluid or semen.

The last credible figures I saw for HIV transmission via unprotected penetrative sex with somebody who was HIV positive reckoned one or two in a thousand for vaginal penetration (I can't remember whether this was specifically for the male or female partner, and I'm trying to relocate them now) or about 0.1 - 0.2%, whereas with unprotected anal it was 1 - 3%, at least ten times higher. The difference in relative transmission rates for other infections is likely to be similar although you're a lot more likely to catch chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis or one of a myriad of other nasties than HIV, in the UK at least.

Edited by AdorableAmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's far, far more risky, due to the fact that the rectal lining is extremely thin and fragile which makes damage in the form of abrasions or tears much more likely, especially if inadequate lubrication is used since there isn't any natural lube unlike with vaginal penetration. This means there is a much higher chance of mucous membranes coming into contact with blood which passes on any infections a lot more efficiently than either vaginal fluid or semen.

The last credible figures I saw for HIV transmission via unprotected penetrative sex with somebody who was HIV positive reckoned one or two in a thousand for vaginal penetration (I can't remember whether this was specifically for the male or female partner, and I'm trying to relocate them now) or about 0.1 - 0.2%, whereas with unprotected anal it was 1 - 3%, at least ten times higher. The difference in relative transmission rates for other infections is likely to be similar although you're a lot more likely to catch chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis or one of a myriad of other nasties than HIV, in the UK at least.

Very well explained Amy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figures were from CHAPS which is part of the Terrence Higgins Trust if I remember rightly, but their site looks to be having a revamp and it's down. I'm fairly sure the figures were for the receptive rather than the insertive partner but two in a hundred would be two too many for me when decent condoms are ten a penny.

Edited by AdorableAmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figures were from CHAPS which is part of the Terrence Higgins Trust if I remember rightly, but their site looks to be having a revamp and it's down. I'm fairly sure the figures were for the receptive rather than the insertive partner but two in a hundred would be two too many for me when decent condoms are ten a penny.

Your first paragraph was explained very well as well. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's far, far more risky, due to the fact that the rectal lining is extremely thin and fragile which makes damage in the form of abrasions or tears much more likely, especially if inadequate lubrication is used since there isn't any natural lube unlike with vaginal penetration. This means there is a much higher chance of mucous membranes coming into contact with blood which passes on any infections a lot more efficiently than either vaginal fluid or semen.

The last credible figures I saw for HIV transmission via unprotected penetrative sex with somebody who was HIV positive reckoned one or two in a thousand for vaginal penetration (I can't remember whether this was specifically for the male or female partner, and I'm trying to relocate them now) or about 0.1 - 0.2%, whereas with unprotected anal it was 1 - 3%, at least ten times higher. The difference in relative transmission rates for other infections is likely to be similar although you're a lot more likely to catch chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis or one of a myriad of other nasties than HIV, in the UK at least.

+2

Good post Amy.

I would also add there there are some seriously unpleasant bugs that lurk in the rectum that you wouldn't normally find in the vagina or mouth. E Coli is a bacterium that kills people in the UK each year, usually because of unhygienic food preparation.

You'd have to be unlucky to catch it during unprotected anal, and it's unlikely (but not unheard of) to kill otherwise healthy adults. But the sickness it causes can be dibilitating.

It's also important to note that women (working girls or civvie) are at risk of developing serious infections caused by anal sex, whether it's bareback or not. A penis pushed into the rectum can damage the rectal mucosa and introduce faecal-borne infections into the bloodstream of a wg, whether or not there's a condom on it.

So guys, please be gentle with your girls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As above although I don't have any stats to quote, from the top of my head I do understand the anus is much more susceptible to micro-tears, and thus the chances of organisms passing across membranes is much higher than for vaginal intercourse. What some men also don't realise is that cross-transfer of organisms from the rectal area into the vaginal area, can cause health complications for women which although usually treatable, are just unpleasant. For example the organisms which cause thrush are present in the anus, introduced to the vagina and it's party time for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big difference between vaginal and rectal damage, not withstanding the presence of harmful bacteria in the rectum, is the difficulty of healing.

If a woman suffers injury (cuts/ abrasions) to her vagina, she can stop having sex and usually it's healed within a week.

However, a woman with an injured rectum or anus has to keep defacating, usually on at least a daily basis. The movement of faeces past an injury in the rectum or anus can re-open a wound and introduce more infectious faecal matter into the woman's bloodstream.

Rectal/ anal injuries are notoriously difficult for the body to heal, often taking many weeks to recover to pre-injury health.

Women who routinely do anal sex need to check themselves regularly, and all wgs should have a thermometer to hand for when they are feeling poorly. Pyrexia is a very good indicator of infection, even in the absence of other symptoms.

The single most important early indicator of injury is pain. If a woman feels pain during anal sex, she should stop immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Profuse apologies for my appalling spelling. It's 'defecating' and 'debilitating'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's far, far more risky, due to the fact that the rectal lining is extremely thin and fragile which makes damage in the form of abrasions or tears much more likely, especially if inadequate lubrication is used since there isn't any natural lube unlike with vaginal penetration. This means there is a much higher chance of mucous membranes coming into contact with blood which passes on any infections a lot more efficiently than either vaginal fluid or semen.

The last credible figures I saw for HIV transmission via unprotected penetrative sex with somebody who was HIV positive reckoned one or two in a thousand for vaginal penetration (I can't remember whether this was specifically for the male or female partner, and I'm trying to relocate them now) or about 0.1 - 0.2%, whereas with unprotected anal it was 1 - 3%, at least ten times higher. The difference in relative transmission rates for other infections is likely to be similar although you're a lot more likely to catch chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis or one of a myriad of other nasties than HIV, in the UK at least.

Well it's not often I'm happy to be wrong, but in this case I'm very grateful as I haven't done it and now won't be doing it.

Thanks Amy in particular and all who replied

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last credible figures I saw for HIV transmission via unprotected penetrative sex with somebody who was HIV positive reckoned one or two in a thousand for vaginal penetration (I can't remember whether this was specifically for the male or female partner, and I'm trying to relocate them now) or about 0.1 - 0.2%, whereas with unprotected anal it was 1 - 3%, at least ten times higher.

I think this is what you're after

http://www.bashh.org/documents/4076

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0