Dr Faustus

The Wonders Of Semen

21 posts in this topic

I would have thought that the worry of the consequences of sex without a condom would be sufficient to cause quite a severe depression in a young lady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all need a reminder from time to time that most people have sex without a condom at vanishingly small or no risk at all to either parties health.

Those of us who have large numbers of sexual partners paid or unpaid are in the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those of us who have large numbers of sexual partners paid or unpaid are in the minority.

Depends what you mean by 'large numbers', otherwise that's a meaningless statement with no evidence to back it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all need a reminder from time to time that most people have sex without a condom at vanishingly small or no risk at all to either parties health.

Those of us who have large numbers of sexual partners paid or unpaid are in the minority.

where did you get the highlighted bit from? unprotected sex always carries a risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every day across the globe men and women have unprotected sex with each other without any adverse health consequences for either party.

If you are paying for/ selling sex the risk increases somewhat so it is wise to use a condom when engaging in penetrative sex (vaginal or ansl)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that really is a meaningless statistic then. Obviously people who are in the top 20% of anything are in the minority, by definition. You can also equally well say those of us who have small numbers of sexual partners are in the minority (i.e. the bottom 20%). Or, those of us who have average numbers of sexual partners are in the minority (the middle 20%).

And "most" (more than 50% of people) have sex without a condom? Really? Where are you getting this information from? Or are you just making stuff up, because that's what it sounds like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every day across the globe men and women have unprotected sex with each other without any adverse health consequences for either party.

And also, every day across the globe men and women have unprotected sex with each other with unbelievably dire health consequences for both parties and their entire families and nations. In Swaziland for instance it's estimated that 26% percent of sexually active adults have HIV/AIDS. In 2002, 64 PERCENT of all deaths were down to HIV/AIDS.

You're spreading dangerous nonsense here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paying for and selling sex makes absolutely no difference to the health risks. It's what you engage in, and how you protect yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the HIV virus is more likely to transmit from protected ( i.e. wearing a condom at start of penetration ) anal sex, than from unprotected vaginal sex.

What I can't remember is the source for this ( some major study of so-called diagonal relationships ).

In other words HIV incidence correlates strongly with preference for anal sex, and weakly with partakers of exclusively vaginal sex.

I'd still prefer to be protected for vaginal sex (as there are many more risks than HIV of course) and not do anal at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every day across the globe men and women have unprotected sex with each other without any adverse health consequences for either party.

If you are paying for/ selling sex the risk increases somewhat so it is wise to use a condom when engaging in penetrative sex (vaginal or ansl)

dude you haven't a clue have you. yes people have unprotected sex without getting diseases, but MANY people do the same and aren't so lucky. do you really want to risk it? it doesn't matter whether you sleep with one person or 50 people, because it only takes one person to infect you. it honestly scares me how clueless you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words HIV incidence correlates strongly with preference for anal sex, and weakly with partakers of exclusively vaginal sex.

Yes I think that's probably true in developed countries.

But the epidemic in Africa is nothing to do with how people have sex. It's down to poverty, misinformation, disempowerment of women, and promiscuity. And tragically now, simply being born with it. This shows what can happen if people are allowed to make stupid unsubstantiated dangerous statements unchallenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think that's probably true in developed countries.

That'll be true JulianC - the study was in the USA; remember it now as a magazine run by Mr Hefner carried a review of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is amazing that some people here talk on the topic of HIV/AIDS like they are experts.

Can i ask what top university did you get your microbiology and virology degree from?

What did you observe when you actually observed how the HIV strand causes reverse transcriptase on the cellular activity?

What does the HIV strand do while it remains dormant in the body, does the strand actually interfere with T-cell activity or does it require a catalyst for the seroconversion to happen.

Lastly, how come semen, which is supposedly a liquid high in HIV cell count, can be swallowed by a WG who sees 10 men a day can go 20 years without any problems but an 18 year a old girl who is virgin can get HIV her first time. In other words, how come it requires exposure to the mucous membrane for contagion to spread despite the fact you can get exposure through swallowing a big load of cum.

Feel free to answer some of the above questions if you wish, so called experts, but the point is anyone can throw out fancy statistics from copy and pasted medical jargon but doing that doesnt make you more knowledgeable than anyone else!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lastly, how come semen, which is supposedly a liquid high in HIV cell count!

Afaik, semen is low in cells of any description, and if it doesn't contain blood it would have a nil HIV cell count. It can of course have a high concentration of extra-cellular RNA which carries HIV and if entering the blood stream through for example a cold-sore, cut or abrasion could be bad news. Swallowing cum does not offer a route into the bloodstream.

Noone on here is claiming to have a biology degree bw, ( are you? ) but we can read medical articles and learned papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Afaik, semen is low in cells of any description, and if it doesn't contain blood it would have a nil HIV cell count. It can of course have a high concentration of extra-cellular RNA which carries HIV and if entering the blood stream through for example a cold-sore, cut or abrasion could be bad news. Swallowing cum does not offer a route into the bloodstream.

Noone on here is claiming to have a biology degree bw, ( are you? ) but we can read medical articles and learned papers.

my response was actually geared towards another poster above, however, in addressing your question - no i do not have a degree so therefore my only sources are the same as yours, public research. I have to question your answer above, if you take vitamins or food, the nutrients are broken down in the stomach to eventually go into the blood stream. Why would it be any different for HIV loaded semen? even though consensus states that HIV will not survive the gastric acids, my common sense makes me naturally want to question this.

i have taken the following from the cdc website below. i just find it funny that people here preach about whats right or wrong like its not good to have unprotected sex and then they will go in swallow a load of cum which can be high in HIV cells. Although statistically it is harder to do, it is not impossible to catch HIV from swallowing. I just find the topic of HIV to be inconclusively rich in contradiction. And you seem to think that semen is a low HIV based fluid but in reality there is plenty of research to show otherwise. Where did you get your sources from?

These body fluids have been shown to contain high concentrations of HIV:

  • blood
  • semen
  • vaginal fluid
  • breast milk
  • other body fluids containing blood

Edited by boywonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HIV viral load is at its highest in semen three to four weeks after infection with HIV, according to a study published in the August 20th edition of AIDS. The study also revealed that individuals with late-stage HIV infection also have high viral loads in their semen, and the investigators believe that their findings confirm earlier suggestions that individuals recently infected with HIV as well as those with advanced HIV disease, are particularly infectious and are driving the spread of HIV.

It is estimated that 80% of all HIV infections are acquired sexually. The transmission of HIV depends upon the infectiousness of the host and the susceptibility of the sexual partner, and both infectiousness and susceptibility can vary significantly over time.

Infectiousness can be directly correlated with viral load in blood, and blood viral load can serve as a surrogate marker of shedding of HIV in genital secretions.

Recent epidemiological research suggests that HIV-positive individuals are at their most infectious soon after they have become infected with the virus, a period often referred to as primary or acute HIV infection. (However a recent US researcher suggested that only 9% of HIV infections were due to individuals with primary infection. Although this model did acknowledge the high viral load present during primary infection, the short duration of primary infection and the small number of sexual contacts per individual during this time limited the contribution of individuals with acute infection to the epidemiology of HIV).

There have been no longitudinal studies of the dynamics of genital tract shedding of HIV during primary infection. However, investigators have recently developed a surveillance strategy that allows for the identification of individuals with primary HIV infection even before antibodies to HIV have developed. This has enabled clinicians to detect a significant number of patients with acute HIV infection in the US state of North Carolina, as well as in Malawi, South Africa, and Brazil.

A team of investigators from North Carolina, San Francisco, and Malawi designed a study which involved men identified with acute HIV infection from a sexually transmitted infections clinic in Malawi. The investigators focused on changes in viral load in both plasma and genital secretions in men with both acute HIV infection and advanced HIV disease.

The study was conducted between February 2003 and October 2004 and included men attending the Lilogwe sexually transmitted diseases clinic in Malawi. All the men attending the clinic were screened for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Investigators estimated the date of primary HIV infection as occurring two weeks before the onset of symptoms of acute antiretroviral syndrome, including fever, headache and joint and muscle pain.

Of the 951 men who attended the clinic, 370 (39%) were HIV-infected. Of these 16 (2%) were confirmed as having acute HIV infection and 345 (37%), chronic HIV infection. The investigators’ prospective study included all 16 men with acute HIV infection and 25 men with chronic HIV infection. On enrolment, 44% of men with acute HIV, and 52% of those with chronic HIV, had gonorrhoea, NSU or chlamydia.

On entry to the study, the median duration of HIV infection for those with acute HIV was estimated to be 28 days. At the initial screening visit, blood viral load was significantly higher in men with acute HIV (1,000,000 copies/ml) than men with chronic HIV (100,000 copies/ml; p = 0.01). One week after enrolment, when semen samples were first obtained, the investigators found that although mean viral load in semen was higher in those with acute HIV infection (25,000 copies/ml), than those with chronic HIV infection (8,000 copies/ml), the difference was not statistically significant.

The investigators calculated that viral load peaked in the blood of acutely infected individuals 17 days after infection at well over 1,000,000 copies/ml and in semen four weeks after acquisition of HIV, at approximately 32,000 copies/ml. It then fell back steeply in both blood and semen, and by week ten was a mean of 125,000 copies/ml in blood and 1,000 copies/ml in semen, levels at which it remained stable through 28 weeks of follow-up. These changes in blood and semen viral load between peak levels and nadir levels were statistically significant (p < 0.001).

For patients with chronic HIV infection, the investigators found a statistically significant relationship between low CD4 cell count and high viral load in semen (p = 0.01). The investigators believe that this finding supports the theory that patients with advanced HIV disease are more infectious. They also found that each 1 log10 drop in CD4 cell count was associated with a 2 log10 increase in viral load in semen. However, peak viral load in the semen of patients with advanced HIV infection was a mean of 1.4 log10 lower than the peak observed in patients with acute HIV infection, a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0168).

“In the current study, we found that HIV in the seminal plasma reached its peak 4 weeks after infection, and that this burst of HIV shedding was almost completely contained by week 10, most likely reflecting the host immune response”, write the investigators.

The investigators conclude that their evidence shows that models suggesting the importance of patients with acute and advanced HIV to the continued epidemiology of HIV “are likely correct, and help to explain the continued spread of HIV in different kinds of populations.” The investigators add, “the need for [the] development of prevention intervention(s) focused on patients in the very earliest stages of HIV infection and their exposed and at-risk sexual partners is urgent.”

Edited by boywonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my response was actually geared towards another poster above, however, in addressing your question - no i do not have a degree so therefore my only sources are the same as yours, public research. I have to question your answer above, if you take vitamins or food, the nutrients are broken down in the stomach to eventually go into the blood stream. Why would it be any different for HIV loaded semen? even though consensus states that HIV will not survive the gastric acids, my common sense makes me naturally want to question this.

i have taken the following from the cdc website below. i just find it funny that people here preach about whats right or wrong like its not good to have unprotected sex and then they will go in swallow a load of cum which can be high in HIV cells. Although statistically it is harder to do, it is not impossible to catch HIV from swallowing. I just find the topic of HIV to be inconclusively rich in contradiction. And you seem to think that semen is a low HIV based fluid but in reality there is plenty of research to show otherwise. Where did you get your sources from?

These body fluids have been shown to contain high concentrations of HIV:

  • blood
  • semen
  • vaginal fluid
  • breast milk
  • other body fluids containing blood

i have no idea who you are directing your reply at, but i don't swallow semen. i don't even do OWO. i care about my health way too much for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you take vitamins or food, the nutrients are broken down in the stomach to eventually go into the blood stream. Why would it be any different for HIV loaded semen? even though consensus states that HIV will not survive the gastric acids, my common sense makes me naturally want to question this.

In a way boywonder, you've answered your own question. Cheese for example doesn't get into the blood-stream as cheese, it gets broken down. Insulin which is a protein of several hundred amino-acids afaik would get broken down if taken orally, hence diabetics have to inject. The altogether smaller virus of extracellular RNA doesn't stand a chance. And that's the consensus as you say. There's no harm in questioning that of course but apart from saying that it goes against your feeling of what should be common sense I don't see what your angle is.

With HIV transmission it's all about the blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noone on here is claiming to have a biology degree bw, ( are you? ) but we can read medical articles and learned papers.

I do have a biology degree (London 1980) and can attest to the fact that if you can read and use a little common sense you will know as much as the next man. The problem is finding a reliable source. There is an awful lot of rubbish in circulation, especially in this age of Wikipedia, where anyone can "publish" an article and many people will accept whatever is said as gospel.

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