I am writing in response to the woman who hated giving head.
With my first two boyfriends, oral sex wasn't a large part of our sex lives. Neither liked eating me much, and I didn't offer to suck them much. My third boyfriend was inexperienced, but had great enthusiasm for everything. He loved eating me, and I quickly learned to love being eaten. I also tried to suck him off, out of feelings of fair play. I'm sure you can predict the results: monotonous blow jobs that rarely led to his having an orgasm.
I had been struck by the amazing difference between eager (him) and dutiful (me), and I wanted to give my next boyfriend eager head. When my current boyfriend came along, I was ready to try out my new attitude, anxious to make him feel good.
Our first sessions weren't very successful, until he told me the incredible magic secret no one had ever told me: You can stop when you get tired! You don't have to set your jaw and suck him till he comes. Try long licks up the shaft, sucking the balls, a little hand-job action. When you're ready, dive back in there with your mouth. Do something for as long as it's fun, and switch when it isn't!
The difference is amazing. Wanting your boyfriend to get head you enjoy giving, and relaxing when you give head--these two things make all the difference in the world!
--Exciting New Treats
Thanks for sharing that inspiring story.
You came down pretty hard on the woman who doesn't give head, and anyone else who doesn't like oral sex. Did you know that HIV is 8,000 times more likely to pass by means of penis-to-mouth than penis-to-anus? Yes. Scientists just figured out that this was, and still is, the easiest way to catch the AIDS virus. This information was released this June and printed in Time, Newsweek, and other publications.
Now are you going to keep on trashing people for their dislike of oral sex, or give them credit for not practicing a dangerous form of sex?
The study supposedly demonstrating that oral sex is riskier than anal intercourse was done on monkeys. "It was a simian immunodeficiency virus [SIV] study--we're talking about monkeys and Q-Tips here, not people and genitals," said Daniel Wolfe of Gay Men's Health Crisis. At the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, seven macaque monkeys were administered oral doses of SIV, and of those seven, six became infected. The monkey killers at Dana-Farber also discovered that oral doses 6,000 times less potent than the anal doses resulted in infected monkeys.
So what does this mean?
Well, according to the authors of the study, "the findings do not mean that the risk for acquiring HIV from oral intercourse is higher than that for rectal intercourse." Why? Monkeys in labs aren't humans in bedrooms. Says Wolfe, "There are a lot of things that go on in the real world that could affect your risk for contracting HIV during oral sex. Factors such as infection [a partner who isn't HIV-positive can't give you the virus], and--if your partner is infected--whether you have sores in your mouth, cracked gums, how rough the oral sex is. Out of the lab and in the bedroom, the equation gets much more complicated.
"The reason these results were reported in Time and Newsweek was that the study did suggest that oral exposure to HIV can result in infection." Indeed, the only conclusion the monkey killers drew from their experiment was that, and I quote, "oral exposure to the virus can result in infection and AIDS in adults."
And guess what? "That wasn't news to a lot of us who've been doing AIDS-prevention work," says Wolfe. Interestingly, the study also showed that it took 830 times more virus to infect monkeys orally than it took to infect them intravenously--a result that jibes with the conventional oral-sex-is-less-risky wisdom.
When you bear in mind that the means by which the monkeys in question were infected (Q-Tips) are markedly different than the means by which humans are usually infected (sex), it becomes more difficult to draw fatuous Time magazine conclusions. Now, if it were possible to train one group of uninfected monkeys to give infected monkeys blow jobs, while another group of infected monkeys butt fucked yet another group of uninfected monkeys, then we might be able to say that, yes, this study shows that oral exposure to HIV is riskier, or less risky, than anal exposure. But I don't think Jesse Helms will allow the federal government to create simian sodomites so we can better advise Homo sapiens sodomites on the relative risks of blow jobs and butt fucking--so for the time being, we can't definitely rank the risks.
Or can we?
What we do know about the risks of oral versus anal sex is drawn from epidemiological studies done on humans. "There have been numerous studies, some involving thousands of people, demonstrating that oral sex is less risky than anal or vaginal sex," says Wolfe. Add to that pile of studies a mountain of anecdotal evidence (the "If It Was Easy to Get It Sucking Dick, We'd All Be Dead" studies), and you can only reach one conclusion: "If you're really worried about AIDS, unprotected anal and vaginal sex are the things you should be most concerned about," says Wolfe.
So, to sum up, all those cute macaques were sacrificed to prove one thing we already knew (oral sex can transmit HIV) and a few things we didn't (a Q-Tip dipped in SIV stuck in Curious George's mouth is more likely to infect than one stuck in Curious George's ass). For the time being, despite the seven dead monkeys, the advice to cocksuckers stays the same: To reduce your already low risk of contracting HIV orally, use condoms for blow jobs (and dental dams, ha ha ha, for eating pussy). To further reduce your risk, stay the hell away from the Q-Tips at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
You constantly reinforce the misconception that butt fucking is synonymous with gay sex. While some gay men engage in butt fucking, all gay men engage in oral cock sucking. Please set the record straight on this with your straight readers, Dan.
While cock sucking is the main sexual activity between gay men, it hardly ever gets proportionate attention. Maybe someday you will want to write an article on the beauty and wonder of gay fellatio, especially as it pertains to "69" between two men.
In the past I have pointed out that not all gay men dig anal sex. And considering all the breeder butt-sex questions I've answered, you must admit I've done my fair share to shatter the misconception that anal sex = gay sex. A lot of straight people are having anal sex, and you can read all about it in my column on a regular basis. But once more for the record: Not all gay men dig butt sex.
As for the disproportionate amount of attention butt sex receives: Butt fucking is more complicated than cock sucking, which naturally results in more questions flowing my way about butt sex. I'm here to answer questions, not sing the praises of various sex acts in direct proportion to their occurrence in the wild. And lastly, while same-sex 69ing is certainly more symmetrical than opposite-sex 69ing, it's no more "beautiful" or "wondrous."
Send questions to Savage Love, Chicago Reader, 11 E. Illinois, Chicago 60611.