Blogs May 27, 2010 at 9:45 am


Anal intercourse is inherently DANGEROUS.
In any and all cases.
Even when neither partner has an STD.
A condom may reduce but does not eliminate the danger.

please don't be surprised or blame Republicans when you get a disease....
But Dan, sometimes, on a first date, my booty just can't say "no" when there's 10 inches being offered.

Just kidding.....
This is likely to be bad news for people who use lubricant (especially the "problematic" ones) in any orifice, since bodily orifices generally used for sex are lined with similar tissues. The emphasis on anal intercourse is probably due to the fact that some of the scientific collaborators were members of "IRMA," the International Rectal Microbicide Advocates.

Just, as they say, sayin'.
"Conference organizers pointed out that in the United States, 90 percent of men who have sex with men -- whether self-identified as gay or not -- engage in receptive anal intercourse. "
Astroglide and KY are awful, awful lubes anyway-- for any kind of sex. I wonder how much of the increased risk is from "toxicity", and how much of it is just damage to tissues (vaginal, rectal, whatever) caused by using lube that quickly dries up and turns sticky?
I really want to understand this first date/hookup restriction. If a condom nearly eliminates your risk of HIV-infection what additional degrees of risk does waiting for a third or even tenth date eliminate? It seems the only additional way to reduce the risk is to date long enough to have all the blood work done to know that there isn't any virus in the equation to begin with. Or to put it another way, if someone tells you on the first date they're HIV positive and you have sex with a condom how is that any more risky than waiting 2 months to have sex with that person with a condom?
from the CDC AIDS site linked from the study-

"Q-How can I protect myself?

"A-The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a longterm mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected."

and Monogamy.
please make a note of it.
@5, agree with you on the awfulness of AG and KY. Part of the answer to your question is in the article--"The research team... did not examine the effect of lubricant use during actual sex. However, in laboratory testing, some of the lubricants were found to have a toxic effect on cells and rectal tissue..."--but I'm sure stickiness and increased shearing forces don't help.

Uh-huh. And the surest way to avoid death in transportation-related accidents is to stay home. The surest way to reduce your risk of liver disease is never to drink. The surest way to avoid communicable disease is to completely avoid contact with other human beings.

Don't pretend that your real concern is safety. Just say what you mean and call it an "abomination."
@1 why not blame the Republicans, when it's the Republicans who are having all the gay sex. Them and the Evangelicals. And they don't believe in condoms, either.

Because anal sex is an inherently risky act, for the health of your ass (to be blunt) and is something that requires trust and prep time (like making sure your anus is relatively clean). Santorum is one thing, full-on shit is another.
try not to let the jealousy eat you up...
Hmmm. This sounds like bad news in general for users of lube. Gay or straight, anal or vaginal, who doesn't need to use a little lube once in awhile?

Only when it's done poorly.
Minor fact point -- this conference already happened (it's not scheduled to happen)-- I was there last weekend. I'll need to go review the abstract, but my first glimpse of this suggests either bad science or bad reporting. There is a huge confounding factor in that people who engage in anal sex are more likely to use lube and INDEPENDENTLY more likely to have STIs. I have to assume that if this abstract was presented at the conference, then they accounted for that, but it is unclear from the reporting here. Bottom line, be careful with your lube and give money to us scientists working to develop rectal and vaginal microbicides.
@14 Only when what's done poorly? Your lack of education is showing again. Balderdash cited three things--transportation accidents, liver disease, and communicable disease. Maybe you should go back to school and learn the difference between singular and plural.
Hi, this is Jim Pickett with IRMA.

We just posted this on our blog to help with some perspective/context on this story. The bottom line - this data should not be over-interpreted.

If you are interested in learning more - click below.

The whirlwind of anal lubricant news - let's get a grip!
Well that's just an incomplete study. They didn't even mention crisco!
yeah- it looks like a case of "correlation does not imply causation"; but if it scares people into being more careful it's not a total loss....
Rhett, we really are concerned for you son...

>Just say what you mean and call IT an "abomination."

>>(It is an abomination) Only when IT's done poorly.

see how that worked?

maybe you could post an email address and we could explain all the little quips and puns and gags directly before they are posted to spare the nice folks on the Slog the tedium....
The study said the problem was the "dissolved salts and sugars" in some of the products...I know that glycerin in lubes can cause vag. infections in women, and propelyne glycol is an irritant...maybe thing is to look for lubes that are glycerin and PG free, astroglide makes one, as well as Sliquid.
The lube study (you can see the original abstract here:… has a different result. The conclusions that people who read the article are coming away with is that using lube may increase your risk of STDs or HIV. What they should see from actually reading the article is that bad lube is bad for you. This is something we know: when you change the Ph of your rectum, vaginal or other cavity; or you introduce outside sugars and salts, you hurt the the cells there. Damaged cells are more susceptible to infection. What this study did was study the osmolarity of the cells when exposed to certain lubes.

Osmolarity refers to the concentration of dissolved particles (salts and sugars) found inside a cell relative to the outside. A product that is isomolar has the same concentration of particles as inside the cell, whereas a product that is hyperosmolar has a higher concentration of salts and sugars relative to the cell. To correct this imbalance, a cell forces water out but then it becomes withered and dies.

PRE and Wet Platinum had no impact on the cells- they were not toxic. KY and Astroglide: really horrible for you.

What this should really tell us is to know what we are putting in our bodies… but it should also tell each of us that we have to be much more careful about reading the results of studies and research. There is so much more information in the world- and it’s up to each of us to verify that the filters which are there to explain things to us are really doing their job and not misinterpreting data to make more interesting journalism or to bolster a public opinion that certain acts and subcultures are dangerous and/or perverse. Think for yourself.
Here are some educational article and videos in regards to personal Lubricants

Silicone Based:…

Water based…

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.