From Girlfriends magazine:

[shes-unreal.livejournal.com]

Ask Dr. Dyke

by Beth Brown, M.D.

How safe, really, are things like dental dams and other barriers for oral sex between two women?
-Hungry

First we have to ask the question: how dangerous, really, is oral sex between two women? It depends on the technique. Most vaginal secretions come from the cervix and from glands right around the vaginal opening, and yes, the HIV virus can be found in menstrual blood and cervical secretions, as can gonorrhea and chlamydia. But catching one of these is unlikely unless you drink really deeply or make direct contact with those glands; it’s especially hard to pick up chlamydia or the clap unless your tongue is amazingly long and can touch your lover's cervix. For what it's worth, this is why oral sex with a woman is probably safer than with a man; in the latter case, men's fluids are more external and travel further.

Viruses such as HPV (genital warts) or herpes, however, can be present on the mucous membranes of the labia and clit as well as inside the vagina and on the cervix. If your partner has visible warts or blisters, she is much more likely to be contagious, but a woman who is infected with either of these viruses can be contagious with no symptoms. She may never have had an outbreak -- she might not even be aware she has a disease. A woman with oral herpes (cold sores) is likewise able to give her partner herpes by giving her head, although transmission is much less likely in the absence of an outbreak.

Since all this is true, using some kind of barrier is a good idea and does make oral sex safer, although nothing is foolproof. Dental dams, split condoms, and latex gloves, as well as Glyde dams, have all been recommended for oral sex, as scientific tests have proven that latex barriers block both bacteria and viruses. The Saran Wrap brand of plastic wrap has actually been proven to block herpes transmission but, as far as I know, has not been tested against HIV, a physically smaller virus than herpes.

The problem with dental dams is that they are thick and clunky, and plastic wrap can be slippery and stick to itself. Plus, even if you apply lube first, it can cut down so much on sensation that people give up. But most women like their clits to be the main object of their lovers' oral attention -- this is good since the area is much less likely to carry diseases than the lips right around the vagina or the vagina itself. Ideally, barriers should completely cover the entire area of interest, but cunnilingus with the clit exposed, but the vagina and anus covered, might be an acceptable compromise.

Comments

[rockstarbob.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I added that to the archive.

[shes-unreal.livejournal.com]

Oh gee, cool, an archived post. :) Well I hope many people find it useful in the futre.

[deathofthelight.livejournal.com]

I think that advice is a little hazardous. "Ideally, barriers should completely cover the entire area of interest, but cunnilingus with the clit exposed, but the vagina and anus covered, might be an acceptable compromise."

Just HOPE there's not any STD virus on the clit, and you SHOULD be OK.

[shes-unreal.livejournal.com]

Ahem.

"Much less likely" doesn't say it won't.
"Ideally" means this is the best situation.
"Acceptable compromise," not the best situation, a sub-par one but a workable one.

It's not saying YES DO IT THIS WAY. It's suggesting, "Maybe do it this way if you're willing to accept that risk."

I think your statement pretty much re-states what the article said.

[deathofthelight.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I read on this community and hear from all sorts of people about how they just contracted an STD. I'm sure that many people would not be infected now if they didn't follow such haphazard advice.

[shes-unreal.livejournal.com]

And considering this is the second time I've butted heads with you in this community in the past week makes me wonder if you just want to be negative on purpose.

[deathofthelight.livejournal.com]

Perhaps you just like butting heads. I don't think that an "acceptable compromise" is "possibly exposing yourself to an STD because you didn't use adequate protection", but that might just be me.

[frolicnaked.livejournal.com]

No, I agree with this. It's pretty easy -- even in the U.S., with all its health care woes -- to get tested for STIs. For me, the responsible course of action would be to get tested and to "require" that my partner get tested before either one of us engaged in any activity that put us at risk. And if that person refused to get tested, then I wouldn't have sex with her.

However, I do realize that not everyone "plans" for sex. If you don't know in advance that sexual activity will happen, then it's pretty difficult to get tested. I wouldn't take the risk of having impulsive sex with someone who didn't know she was STI-free, but I'm not prepared to make that decision for someone else.

[deathofthelight.livejournal.com]

If the article mentioned getting tested for STIs, it might be acceptable... but it doesn't. The article makes it sound like that particular form of protection is "acceptable" to use with people who are not tested. I see this as incredibly risky.

[shes-unreal.livejournal.com]

I think that if anyone besides you saw this article as promoting unsafe sex, it would: a. not have been published in a lesbian magazine, b. not have been archived by the mods.

Your concerns have been duly noted, and I am sure we will all make the effort to file them away in our little brains for future consideration.

[deathofthelight.livejournal.com]

Yes, because if it's printed in a magazine, we all know it's true, right? :P

[shes-unreal.livejournal.com]

Uh duh, I didn't say it wasn't true.

But as far as I know of there aren't a hell of a lot of GLBT magazines promoting unhealthy activities.

Hell, telling homosexuals to get tested is practically preaching to the choir nowadays. The rate of HIV is rising the fastest among black and latino women, not lesbians.