4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Use of Saliva as a Lubricant in Anal Sexual Practices Among Homosexual Men

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31819388a9

Keywords

homosexual; saliva; lubricant; anal intercourse

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA119903, U01 CA078124] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [P30 AI027763] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [K01 HD052020, K01 HD052020-01] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [T32 MH019105, T32 MH19105, P30 MH062246] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Compared with other sexually active adults, men who have sex with men (MSM) are more frequently infected with several pathogens including cytomegalovirus, hepatitis B virus, and Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus. Because one common element between these organisms is their presence in saliva, we evaluated saliva exposure among MSM in a heretofore relatively unrecognized route-via use of saliva as a lubricant in anal sex. Methods: MSM in a San Francisco population-based cohort were interviewed regarding use of saliva by the insertive partner as a lubricant in various anal sexual practices. Results: Among 283 MSM, 87% used saliva as a lubricant in insertive or receptive penile-anal intercourse or fingering/fisting at some point during their lifetime; 31%-47% did so, depending upon the act, in the prior 6 months. Saliva use as a lubricant was more common among younger men and among HIV-infected men when with HIV-infected partners. Even among MSM following safe sex guidelines by avoiding unprotected penile-anal intercourse, 26% had anal exposure to saliva via use as a lubricant. Conclusions: Among MSM, use of saliva as a lubricant is a common, but not ubiquitous, practice in anal sex. The findings provide the rationale for formal investigation of whether saliva use in this way contributes to transmission of saliva-borne pathogens in MSM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available