Oral Sex Linked to Oral Cancer
February 25, 2004 12:24 PM   Subscribe

Oral Sex Link to Mouth Cancer
"Although the risk is small and it is more likely to result from heavy drinking and smoking, scientists have uncovered evidence that oral sex can cause mouth cancer."

Bummer.
posted by fenriq (43 comments total)


 
Fist cancer joke.
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:29 PM on February 25, 2004


foot cancer joke.
posted by quonsar at 12:31 PM on February 25, 2004


Here's the actual article, rather than the article about the article. This is the Internet, after all.
posted by VulcanMike at 12:33 PM on February 25, 2004


If anyone actually gives up oral sex....
posted by jon_kill at 12:33 PM on February 25, 2004


I heard otherwise.
posted by blueshammer at 12:35 PM on February 25, 2004


Scientists discover posession of penis linked to penis cancer.
posted by ringmaster at 12:35 PM on February 25, 2004


I hope it's not oversharing to say that until further proof is discovered, I'll continue to take my chances. Until then, my proverbial head remains in the proverbial sand.
posted by chicobangs at 12:41 PM on February 25, 2004


VulcanMike: You linked to the article about the article! The FPP links the article about the article about the article. The actual article is even referenced in the article you linked!
posted by biffa at 12:43 PM on February 25, 2004


"This is a major study in terms of size"

heh.
posted by Cyrano at 12:43 PM on February 25, 2004


Okay now, let's everybody sing along with Joe Jackson (you're excused, Migs)...
posted by wendell at 12:43 PM on February 25, 2004


That's a really poorly-worded statement. You can have all the oral sex you want with a person who doesn't have HPV, and are at no risk for oral cancer. It should read "Performing oral sex on persons infected with HPV can increase the chance of contracting oral cancers."
posted by headspace at 12:44 PM on February 25, 2004


chicobangs, may I recommend asking your girlfriend to shower after she goes to the beach... proverbially, of course.
posted by wendell at 12:45 PM on February 25, 2004


Researchers had suspected that a sexually transmitted infection that is linked to cervical cancer could also be associated with tumors in the mouth.

So does that mean us gay guys are in the clear? Pardon me as I go celebrate.
posted by FreezBoy at 12:58 PM on February 25, 2004


Wendell, we needn't go into my predilections for beaches or showers or your (accurate and well-intentioned) advice to me in this thread. (Not to brag, but -- actually, I have little to brag about. Never mind.)

The article feels like a bit of a nonstarter, as headspace mentioned. It's like saying the odds of dying from a drug overdose are greater among crack addicts than among, uh, people who don't do crack.
posted by chicobangs at 1:00 PM on February 25, 2004


Can we please stop the posts about the posts which link to the articles which link to the articles which link to the articles. This is the internet after all.
posted by filchyboy at 1:38 PM on February 25, 2004


Correlation != causation.
posted by toothgnip at 1:57 PM on February 25, 2004


Ok, so one of the same 3 serotypes of Human Papilloma Virus that's linked as a cause of cervical cancer is associated with cancer on other mucosal surfaces? Not a surprise. For the record, the medical board question answer is serotypes 16, 18 and 31.
posted by shagoth at 2:10 PM on February 25, 2004


I heard that driving a car is a bit risky. Also, smoking fucks you up. Being overweight can also kill you, not to mention all the other stuff that can give you a really bad day.

I am currently learning to drive, and am giving up smoking, and attempting to live a more healthy lifestyle.

Anyone care for some oral sex? I'm rather good at it.
posted by chrid at 2:22 PM on February 25, 2004


Will Arnie try to ban Plo Chops?
posted by moonbird at 2:34 PM on February 25, 2004


What's next? Mad Plo Disease?

Nothing personal, chico, there are just some straight lines I can't resist responding to... (as anyone on #mefi will testify)

And it's just too much work to take the subject of this post seriously... When I read shagoth's comment, I thought he was referring to "stereotypes 16, 18 and 31", and I wondered what list he got them from...

And in the interest of full disclosure, here's another of chrid's mad skillz. Funny, but NSFBarbie. (And I'm trying very very hard to avoid making a connection to madamjujujive's picture on Orkut)
posted by wendell at 2:36 PM on February 25, 2004


So does that mean us gay guys are in the clear?

No. Men can become infected with HPV; heterosexual women contract the virus though contact with infected men. The virus is widespread, and infection is mostly asymptomatic (until, of course, you get the cancer).
posted by mr_roboto at 2:39 PM on February 25, 2004


I'm crying laughing here.

Oh and the next CA movement: Save the Plo Chops!
posted by humbe at 2:56 PM on February 25, 2004


Sometimes I think people should spend their time trying to find out just what the heck DOESN'T cause cancer these days.
posted by synecdoche at 3:18 PM on February 25, 2004


ah blow me.
posted by pekar wood at 3:49 PM on February 25, 2004


Breathing oxygen causes cancer.

Next.
posted by ed at 4:03 PM on February 25, 2004


And living causes death.
posted by fenriq at 4:48 PM on February 25, 2004


More proof that vague risks of cancer shouldn't prevent one from enjoying life.
posted by Dasein at 5:04 PM on February 25, 2004


Speak for yourself. You are talking about risking your own mouth, right, not your partner's?

If you're gonna get cancer, mouth cancer is a pretty horrible cancer to get. I see this as yet another reason to avoid giving oral sex.
posted by beth at 5:35 PM on February 25, 2004


Research shows that research cause cancer in lab rats.

beth:
You don't sound like a fun date.
posted by spazzm at 7:05 PM on February 25, 2004


If contact with ejaculate caused cancer, one would expect to find higher rates of cancer in, um, some other areas. Are there, for instance, higher rates of vaginal cancer and mouth cancer among sexually active heterosexual women than in sexually active lesbians?
posted by orange swan at 7:21 PM on February 25, 2004


Hand cancer?
posted by spazzm at 7:27 PM on February 25, 2004


beth: get a life.

Every other day there's some study or other about a new cancer risk. Since most people don't read beyond the headlines, and since most papers don't get into the details, they don't see that these studies rarely prove causation. Correlation is not the same.

We're all going to die eventually. Should we starve ourselves of enjoyment in life in the hope of living a year or two longer because we've been scared by some study that correlates a slightly higher risk of cancer with oral sex?

If your answer is yes, in addition to being a miserabilist, you are, as spazzm says, not a fun date.
posted by Dasein at 7:41 PM on February 25, 2004


Dasein and Spazzm are assuming the woman who posted this isn't a fun date?
posted by orange swan at 7:54 PM on February 25, 2004


can gym socks get cancer?
posted by trondant at 8:06 PM on February 25, 2004


Whoa!
posted by spazzm at 8:10 PM on February 25, 2004


Hot damn.
posted by Dasein at 8:50 PM on February 25, 2004


I can't believe nobody has said "this sucks" yet.
posted by MiG at 1:50 AM on February 26, 2004


This sucks.
posted by moonbiter at 3:30 AM on February 26, 2004


Don't we all.
posted by orange swan at 5:11 AM on February 26, 2004


Yeesh, some people are so quick to pass judgment on me without even knowing what my *other* reasons for not wanting to give head are.

You probably don't know about the bet I have going with angry modem, wherein he'll give me $20 if I forego such activities for a full year. Only 8 more months to go! That $20 is so mine.

(Yeah, there are other reasons, too. Like not having an eligible man in my life, for instance. I am doing the spinster thing at the moment.)
posted by beth at 6:29 AM on February 26, 2004


In other news, not having oral sex causes divorce. okay, I did a crappy job of finding a supporting link, but you get the idea.
posted by theora55 at 9:43 AM on February 26, 2004


If contact with ejaculate caused cancer, one would expect to find higher rates of cancer in, um, some other areas. Are there, for instance, higher rates of vaginal cancer and mouth cancer among sexually active heterosexual women than in sexually active lesbians?

I don't know if ejaculate is the only way HPV is transferred, but I do know that cervical cancer has something very close to 100 percent correlation to HPV. No sex=no cancer of the cervix. No sex with infected people=no cancer of the various areas.

Some studies suggest that more than half of people having sex have HPV. But not all forms of the virus are linked to the cancer. (< ahref="http://www.ashastd.org/stdfaqs/hpv.html">see for yourself)
posted by croutonsupafreak at 10:09 AM on February 26, 2004


D'oh. see for yourself.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 10:10 AM on February 26, 2004


« Older pinhole.cz   |   MouseCount! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments