Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!ucla-cs!usenet
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: French kissing - safe or unsafe?
Message-ID: <1991Jun29.114910.23700@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 29 Jun 91 06:45:06 GMT
References: <1991Jun24.124202.26280@cs.ucla.edu> <1991Jun25.173427.21341@cs.ucla.edu> <1991Jun28.172317.129@cs.ucla.edu>
Sender: usenet@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News Himself)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 54
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note: non-commercial reproduction.
Nntp-Posting-Host: squid.cs.ucla.edu
Archive-Number: 3312

In article <1991Jun28.172317.129@cs.ucla.edu> 
mtxinu!ohday.sybase.com!tim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Wood) writes:
>Does this mean that all single people who commit to a monogamous
>relationship in the future must nevertheless exclusively practice "dry"
>sex indefinitely?  

Why not?  Is it really that important to have high-risk sex when low risk
sex is easy, as pleasurable, and safer? 

>(My just-made-up term; it seems more precise than
>"safe/r sex" in that it means *no* contact with any liquid-borne
>substance from your partner's body.  

You're excluding kissing; I wouldn't, unless I'd just flossed my teeth. 

>It also lends an ironic tone which
>helps me communicate my point.  

And also biases the argument.

>To get assurance that
>both in a new relationship are HIV-, they have only "dry" sex for at
>least six months, then both partners get tested.  If the tests are
>negative, both are as safe (practically) as they can be, no?  

If you're taking the PCR virus test rather than the antibody test, and you
have it done twice at different labs, then maybe.  

>I am for the moment assuming no other diseases.

A dubious assumption. There are lots of viruses out there, and we don't
know to test for them, even if we could.  HIV was spread by people having
what we know call unsafe sex, back before people had thought of that
concept.  Why run the risk?  I'm not saying that we have to live in a
sterile bubble - I'm saying that although the risk of some unknown disease
is pretty low, the consequences of catching one might be catastrophic, and
prevention is easy.   Use your imagination and play safe.

>Of course, the assurance one eventually wants here is the assurance that it's
>OK to have "wet" sex.  I just can't see being in a committed relationship
>and using condoms for other than birth control (again, ignoring other
>diseases: eg male jock itch can cause a vaginal yeast infection.)

It's your life. 

>Implicit to the relationship is trust.  If I couldn't ultimately trust 
>my partner way more than the likelihood of condom failure, I wouldn't stay.

People have been cheating in marriages for thousands of years, and for
thousands of years people have been saying that they'd never do such a
thing.  Yeah, I know, this time it's different.

-- 
Jack Hamilton         jfh@netcom.com         apple!netcom!jfh