Hi. I've read many of the expert forum pages and know that even during receptive unprotected oral sex, the risks of STDs of any kind are said to be "very very low" risk. With a condom, a couple of the experts said it is "zero." Similarly, I've read that there is no concern for performing oral sex on a scrotum if there are no obvious lesions or sores present. Oral sex, even if unprotected and with ejaculation, is said to be an "inefficient" means of infection and one expert gave a statistic of having to perform oral daily for 20 years with an infected partner before getting the theoretical exposure to HIV via oral transmission. This statistic says nothing of course of the risks of other STDs, but again all the experts seem quite agreed in that oral sex (even when practiced without a condom) is a very low risk activity, especially compared to unprotected vaginal or anal sex.
I find extreme examples also more informative, even if perhaps comical, but the purpose is to be informative than laughable. To that end, in light of the expert's view on oral sex, consider the following scenario and what reasonable associated risks someone should be concerned:
Say a person performed fellatio on a dozen anonymous men, one after the other, each wearing a condom. But that this person also kissed, licked, and sucked on the scrotum of all the men as well. None of the men say had any obvious lesions or sores and there was considerable contact for a long period of time with their skin of the scrotum. Given what is on these forums, both in the community and especially the expert forums, one would have to conclude that this person performing these oral sex acts on all these men whose health status is unknown would still constitute a "very low risk activity" and should not really be concerned for STD infection.
Now, given what I have read on these forums, I have to conclude , I have to conclude what the doctors and forums have said and that even for this more extreme example, the risks of any STD is extremely low. But still my intuition says that cannot be possibly right, which then makes me wonder how to interpret these claims for a more realistic scenario.
Or is my interpretation completely wrong? For this more extreme example, would the STD risk still be viewed as "extremely low risk" as more than suggested by the doctor expert and community forums?
My hope is that in this more extreme example, we can glean something of more realistic encounters.
Thanks in advance and to any medhelp links that would be of value to others reading this and wondering the same question.