Curious about this forum’s opinion HIV

[Andyzzz9988]

Hey there. I have a couple of questions related to HIV and am interested in knowing the opinion of the community members.

1. Why is Oral sex always classified as No Risk on this forum when official health agencies state that it carries some risk especially when hiv+ partner has a high viral load and if there are cuts/sores/etc. in mouth and/or on genitals? Why the conservative approach from CDC NHS etc on this topic? At the same time, these health agencies state that other activities such as kissing are No risk so why can’t they say oral is no risk?

2. I noticed that this forum’s responses to questions on 4th gen testing windows say that results are conclusive after 4 weeks. Health organisations all say 6 weeks. I’m curious why that is?

Oh also, I’ve read on the internet that condoms are only 70-80% effective at preventing HIV, but other sites say if the sex was protected then there was no risk.

Not second guessing the extensive experience of members - just interested in hearing your thoughts.

[AnxiousNoMore]

No one got hiv from the oral and kissing after 40 years of hiv history so it is unlikely to happen over the next 40 years of your life as well. On the other hand there is a real possibility of being hit by a meteorite or thousands of other similar catastrophic low probability events but you don't ever think about them, so your priorities are misplaced when you are so focused on the event that has never even happened in real life yet.
It is time to move on.

[stupidguy_9797]

I don't know. Some people say that it no risk whereas some websites say there is. Theoretically, there is a risk they say. But there are some studies that say saliva kills the virus, even when there is blood in mouth. Imagine so many people get blowjobs everyday. I can't help but think that would make HIV a common virus like Herpes. Also, I have read no one wants to take a 100% no risk stance to avoid any legal issues with someone claiming they got it via so and so act. They will always leave out 1% or .1%. Almost no professional would take a 100% stance on any STI I have observed. I can only wait now.

[H.concern.123]

Regarding your question on condom efficacy, you should probably check out this link - https://www.aidsmap.com/about-hiv/do-condoms-work

Also, here's a text snippet from the article which should also help explaining the 70-80% figure:

////Laboratory studies and product testing have shown that reputable condoms tested in the laboratory are completely impermeable to micro-organisms as small as viruses. The British Association for Sexual Health and HIV say that it is reasonable to suggest that the effectiveness of condoms against HIV when used reliably and consistently may be over 95%.

However, this is based on condoms being used as recommended. How well do condoms actually work in preventing HIV in the real world?

Producing an accurate estimate is difficult for researchers. One reason for this is that they rely on study participants accurately reporting their use of condoms, frequency of sex and the HIV status of their sexual partners. People may not be entirely honest about such issues if they fear judgement from researchers, which will skew results. For example, if people who occasionally use condoms tell researchers that they always use them, results for “consistent condom users” will include data from people who are actually inconsistent users. These individuals are more likely to acquire HIV and condom effectiveness will be underestimated. ////

As CurfewX, AnxiousNoMore, and GuitarRox have mentioned here before, if your condom is intact and covering the head, it is impenetrable barrier to the body fluids that contain the virus.