Is this a TRUE definition, ORAL SEX, when one TALKS about sex, because one isn't GETTING sex?

Question

Enlighten me!

Answer 1

Contrary to popular belief, oral sex is not a completely safe alternative to vaginal or anal sex. Chlamydia, human papillomavirus (HPV), gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis (multiple strains), and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) — including HIV — can be transmitted through oral sex.[14]. However transmission of HIV through fellatio or cunnilingus is relatively rare. Any kind of direct contact with body fluids of a person infected with HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) should be avoided. In 2005, a research study at the College of Malmö in Sweden suggested that performing unprotected oral sex on a person infected with HPV might increase the risk of oral cancer .[15] The risk from most of these types of infection, however, is generally considered far lower than that associated with vaginal or anal sex.

Furthermore, oral sex should be avoided when either partner has wounds or open sores on the genitals or mouth, or bleeding gums in the mouth, or has recently brushed, flossed, undergone dental work, or eaten crunchy foods such as potato chips, all of which can cause small scratches in the lining of the mouth. These wounds, even when they are microscopic, increase the chances of contracting STDs that can be transmitted orally under these conditions. Such contact can also lead to more mundane infections from common bacteria and viruses found in, around and secreted from the genital regions. Because of this, many medical professionals advise the use of condoms in the performance of fellatio (flavoured condoms are available for this purpose) and the use of plastic or latex sheets (dental dams or ordinary plastic wrap) for cunnilingus, although the latter has failed to achieve the same level of widespread use as condoms.

Answer 2

Well sort of yes and no if that helps. OK so if your going to look in a sex dictionary then Oral sex is defined as : A sex act where the mouth of one person is placed on the genitals of another. How ever if your looking and an everyday dictionary you won't find those two word's together. if you look them up separately then you will find oral Means, to speak or anything in or around your mouth. Sex is defined as penetration, and most other thing's you consider sexual. So the true definition and how we mean the word does change with the user.

Answer 3

You take me for a fool? You know that talking is impossible, or is at least bad manners. One should never talk with one's mouth full.

Talking about sex is still not getting any. There are those who talk and those that do. So which are you?

True enlightenment comes when one learns to make one's mouth one with the organ of another. Oral sex? Think harmonica, you know, a mouth-organ.

Answer 4

No. Oral sex is a sex act by one person performed on anothers genitals.

Answer 5

It has no longer some thing to do with faith. Did you ever ask your self the position the idea got here from or why it has develop into defined as one guy/one female? Does it look outstanding that it has come to signify this in fairly a lot each and every civilization contained in the international regardless of the contact that they had with one yet another? there's a reason. Marriage is a company. It develop into created for one purpose; to envision and promote the suited familiar of habit for an orderly society. It skill no longer some thing better and by no skill some thing a lot less. each and every man or woman is carefully loose to have sex with the different man or woman, stay with the different man or woman, have each and every of the babies they need with whomever they elect and so on. and so on. and so on. yet, in hardship-free words the suited mix will be considered marriage. the suited is one guy married to at least one female and each and every of the babies being the fruit of that union. This nuclear kinfolk has shown to be ultimate for adult men, women people and babies. It has shown ultimate for society besides. that's why that's considered the suited. There can in hardship-free words be one suited. Redefining marriage as some thing except the suited consequently proving that the suited isn't etched in stone yet is mailable to regardless of the present social fad or feeling needs it to signify renders it meaningless. you won't be able to make a union of two adult men, or 2 women people or 3 people or the different mix equivalent to the suited with out destroying the suited. similar to awarding the first 3 who go the end line a gold medal might want to a great deal lessen the properly worth of triumphing a gold medal. If gay people elect to enter into settlement with one yet another, I strongly help that they be allowed to attain this, providing we do not call what they do "marriage". also, that's critical to undergo in concepts that 2 people of a similar gender may also enter into this form of civil union regardless of in the journey that they are not gay. Heterosexuality and homosexuality aren't to any extent further addressed contained in the definition of marriage. there are a range of examples of homosexuals who married people of the option sex for regardless of reason. *