But that’s ‘receptive’, so you need a circumcised dick to fuck you to get that 60% less, not the recipient right?
I think it has to do with the tearing and abrasions (look at factors increase risk)
Why WTF? Obviously if there’s less friction there’s less chance of bodily fluids mingling.
Lubrication in itself doesn’t reduce risk in itself. It’s other correlating factors like tearing and friction and etc.
Hmm, I’m not sure. Does single exposure mean each time you insert?
No, not having a foreskin reduces your chances of contracting HIV. Nobody is quite sure why. Some say the virus hides somehow under the foreskin. I think the answer is simpler - there is a greater risk of tears with a foreskin.
What’s the difference?
In my lifetime there have been two epidemics where logic has gone out the window - obesity and HIV/AIDS. I’m incredulous as to how otherwise intelligent people become temporarily daft on these issues.
I’m actually curious what’s the risk of using toys. lol.
Sucks that receiving have double the risk than giving it.
Using toys is pretty low unless somehow a lot of blood and open wounds are involved.
HIV is most present in the blood, then in sexual fluids, and finally in spit. Not quite certain where urine or feces falls in that list.
It’s actually kind of difficult to contract HIV unless you are a bottoming gay male. Sadly, women are also more likely to get it from infected men.
Well, of course it would.
Christ on a bike!
HIV is not contracted though saliva.
I give up
1 Like
Even in the case of wounds in the mouth?
Would that be saliva?
It would be through saliva, or pretty close.
Toilet seats also applies.
Yea I know. But it’s fun to receive lol.
1 Like
That seems rather more unlikely.
I think it’s so cool when people post from like 1982…
Is it not? I’ve read that there’s an incredibly minute chance. Like really not even worth worrying about.