- This topic has 15 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 4 weeks, 1 day ago by
.
-
Posts
-
When people talk about breastfeeding or dry suckling with different partners over short time periods, they usually focus on the emotional side or the fantasy side. What rarely gets discussed are the biological risks. These aren’t moral issues or judgments; they’re just the realities of how the body works when multiple mouths come into contact with the same skin in a short window.
I’ve seen multiple women and men unashamedly want to feed and don’t mind feeding on or with different people especially newbies. So I think it’s important to just focus on the biological risks and precautions.
The breast is soft tissue. The mouth carries bacteria, viruses, and fungi. Every person has a completely different oral microbiome. Just because they brushed their teeth, used mouthwash and chewed on a box of chewing gum before arriving, it doesn’t mean they are healthy. They may need dental surgery, have a broken tooth, gum inflammation or many other expensive non-traceable conditions. When several people nurse from the same breast within hours or days, all of those microorganisms mix on the skin. That increases the chance of irritation, inflammation, and infection for both sides.
Dry suckling (no milk involved) can still transmit things like staph, strep, MRSA, candida/thrush, and herpes simplex if someone has it orally without knowing. These are all common organisms that live in the mouth or on the skin. If the breast becomes irritated or micro‑damaged from repeated suckling, it becomes easier for bacteria to enter. If the nipple is cracked or bleeding, there’s also a small blood‑exposure risk, which increases the chance of transmitting bloodborne infections like hepatitis B or C. Nipple piercings are great places for microorganisms while picking up sore throats, colds and coughs.
Wet suckling (milk involved) adds additional risks because breast milk is a bodily fluid. Milk can carry CMV, HTLV‑1/2, and in rare cases HIV. It can also contain traces of medications, supplements, or substances the woman has taken. So dry nursing has its own risks, and wet nursing adds more on top.
Short time periods make everything more intense. The skin doesn’t have time to recover. Irritation builds. Micro‑abrasions form. Bacteria from different mouths mix. The immune system has to deal with more variables at once. That’s why spacing sessions out reduces risk.
There are things people can do to prepare themselves if they want to reduce the biological risks. None of this is complicated it’s just basic health precautions.
Check the skin first. If there’s redness, irritation, cracking, soreness, or dryness, it’s better to wait. Healthy, intact skin is the best protection.
Oral health matters. Good oral hygiene reduces bacterial load. Seeing a hygenist twice at a minimum. Brushing teeth, flossing and using mouthwash beforehand lowers the risk of passing things like staph, strep, candida, or cold‑sore virus. Personally, I got in the habit of brushing my teeth after meals and allowing my mouth to be clean for 30 minutes.
Avoid contact if anyone has active infections. Cold sores, sore throat, fever, oral ulcers, thrush, respiratory infections all of these increase risk. Even if someone feels “mostly fine,” symptoms like a scratchy throat or mouth irritation can mean their immune system is fighting something.
Clean the skin gently before sessions. Mild soap and water reduce bacteria on the breast. It doesn’t need to be harsh or medical — just clean.
Moisturise lightly. Healthy skin is more resistant to irritation. Dry skin cracks more easily, and cracked skin is the biggest risk factor for infection transmission.
Space sessions out. Giving the skin time to recover reduces the chance of micro‑damage. Even a few hours can make a difference.
Avoid if nipples are cracked or bleeding. This is the single highest‑risk situation. If there’s any bleeding, even tiny, it increases the chance of transmitting bloodborne infections. Waiting until the skin is fully healed is the safest option.
After a session, pay attention to how the body feels. If the breast becomes sore, red, hot, swollen, or painful, or if there’s a burning sensation, that can be a sign of irritation or infection. This is different from throbbing. Flu‑like symptoms, fever, or chills can indicate mastitis or another infection. If any of these happen, it’s important to stop all nursing until symptoms clear and to seek medical advice if things worsen or don’t improve.
Keeping the area clean and dry afterwards helps. Rest and hydration support the immune system. If symptoms persist or spread, a doctor should be consulted promptly.
None of this is about telling anyone what they should or shouldn’t do. It’s simply the biological reality of repeated mouth‑to‑skin contact with different people over short time periods. If people choose to engage in it, they deserve to know the actual health information so they can protect themselves and the people involved.
With all sexual health, we cannot predict what the other person is bringing to the table. We can only try to be as responsible as we can but the more people you see the more people you put at risk.
I speak from experience, I did all the above, I met a Woman had a 3 hour session and ended up with a 6 week cough. When I asked her afterwards unable to go 5 mins without coughing she told me she saw 2 people in that same week.
The problem is that *new* partners bring new bacteria/fungi/microbiome goodies. I’m not sure about your angle about women having multiple nursing partners, your overall very useful advice comes across as a little shaming due to this. The very real risks could be as much a problem from meeting a woman who isn’t nursing anyone else at the time as it is if they are seeing several people in one week – if they’ve got a cough or cold sore or you bring one to the table you don’t need a third party to make that a problem, though obviously the risk is higher the more bodies are involved the more likely someone is carrying something.
Both very good reasons and cautions to be aware of.
It’s important to be safe but taking 10 times the number of precautions doesn’t make you 10 times safer. There needs to be a certain sense of proportion.
Very little of this is factually based medical information. If somebody wants to have some fun with this try putting this into two or three different AI engines and asking is this accurate or overstated?
My last ANR was with a family doctor with a master’s of immunology. She was more pedantic than I am which takes some effort. With all the research we did I didn’t see much of this coming up. We looked to see what the risks and limits are. There are theoretical risks but it’s also commingling the risks of a baby with an undeveloped immune system and a grown adult.
All of this was generated as a result of one person having one situation where that a cold at the same time that they’re nursing partner had multiple partners that week. This is not causal. This is a Tuesday.
Exercise common sense. If you approach breastfeeding with the same rigor you approach kissing somebody on the mouth with, which is a significantly riskier activity than mouth to nipple contact, everybody’s going to be just fine.
I would like to propose that the sticky gets removed from this until there’s some fact-checking. This is fear mongering in helpful medical advice clothing.
TLDR: Stay on top of sexual health and get checked. Be careful who you meet up with. Dry nursing isn’t super risky but there is always a risk when it comes to anything sexual. Whether that risk is big or small.
I don’t even think it’s fear mongering. I’m gonna stand on business when I say this. There are risks to doing any sexual activity whether it’s between just two people or it’s more than two.
The risk is much greater if you are meeting more than one person in a given week. Just like scratch tickets. The more you buy, the more likely you are to win even if it’s a small prize. You are more likely to get something if you are meeting multiple strangers in a given week. Yes you can STILL catch something from one person. That’s all it takes.
The lifestyle of meeting up with multiple people in a given week (strangers) not a group that has been together for awhile and exclusively is together, is more likely to catch something. The point of this was simply to bring attention to that you aren’t immune to catching something even if it’s just dry nursing. That’s all.
If it does make people concerned then good that’s the point! To not willy nilly meet people and both people should have health checked before meeting. If it’s just nursing you don’t need too. I personally if I have sex with someone I WILL get tested before meeting someone else. Just be safe
Edit: You said the same thing I did so what’s the issue? Approach with caution. That was the point of the post.
As someone that worked in the medical field for decades with an emphasis on communicable diseases .. this is not only full of great facts and information but also very well written in easy read format.
So thank you for putting in the time to share very useful information, even if only as a reminder to use common sense.
– And this should ABSOLUTELY be pinned to the top or at least somewhere in the menu box. We are, after all a COMMUNITY.. and should act / provide as such.
– Just my educated 2cents.Cheers
tl;dr. any of the risks documented have way more to do with open wound hygiene and hardly anthing to do with nipples. there is ZERO data to support a statiscially sigificant risk that involves multiple partners, and sounds more like moralizing than sexual health data.
i’m a bit obsessive about sexual health. i am poly, but with one partner currently. when in multiple relationships simultaneously i test every 90 days, with my partner also testing in the middle of my testing cycle. in addition to perioditc testing, i test at the end of any relationship, and if there were to be any slip, physically or otherwise of sexual barrier protection with a condom, i would wait 15 days and test. test for hiv again a month later, and retest for syphilis within 12 weeks, which is generally covered by 4x a year i test.i’m quite sure i drive my doctor nuts with all the test reqs. anyone i engage in regular play with, i ask for testing and an assuerance of full disclosure even if we are using condoms which is always unless everyone in the polycule agrees to it, after seeing test results and having agreements in place about honesty, disclosure and regular testing.
i don’t discuss this as someone who is cavalier about sexual risk in the slightest. one of the responsibilities i have to my partner as a person in a polu situation is making sure that i treat her health like she desrves full disclosure, because she does, and making sure that my sexual health, and by extension, her sexual health is the top priority, because it is. The best way to stay healthy is to identify actual risky behavior and avoid it. statistically insignifcant risk is not something that deserves this much attention, much less a sticky.
i research specifics before i stick out my neck and open my mouth. when i read this post, i examined it thorouthly i looked for annual infection rates. examining data over several decades, worldwide medical literature contains only a handful of isolated case reports—not annual statistics:
Gonorrhea in nipple tissue: a few older cases (e.g., 1993 Australia) involving oral-nipple contact plus a piercing. One more recent Australian report similarly involved oral-nipple contact and a piercing.
Syphilis on the nipple: rare reports after bites (one 2024 case) or genital-nipple friction (2022 Vietnam case). Bites involve saliva plus trauma, not ordinary sucking.
Herpes on the nipple: almost all published adult cases involve breastfeeding (infant-to-mother). One 2025 report described HSV mastitis after consensual oral manipulation that included biting the nipple.
HIV: no documented adult transmissions from sucking nipples, even when the person was lactating. The volume of fluid is far too small.These reports are published precisely because they are unusual. They do not add up to a countable number in any U.S. year.
Bottom line from the evidence
Ordinary oral or genital contact with intact nipples (no visible sores, no bleeding, no piercing with discharge, no biting that breaks skin) has produced so few documented transmissions that it does not appear in national STI data. The activity is treated as extremely low-risk. Visible lesions or trauma on either the nipple or the mouth/genital area would change the picture the same way they would for any other skin-to-skin contact.short of kissing i’d call it the most common form of sexual contact, despite this the cases are so rare that they are basically statiscally insignificant. the idea that multiple people sucking on the same nipple is some significant risk is not consistent with the science. technically two of a thing is riskier than one of a thing, but its double what is essentally a statistcally insignificant number of cases.
– mouth contact with unhealed nipple piercing are a real risk, and take 6-12 months to fully heal. most of that risk is bacterial infections. nipple piercings that have not yet healed are open sores. treat them as such. MRSA and mastitis can certainly happen with oral contact on those, as covered above.
the issue i have is that there is no science in this post. it is well assembled but is light on fact. the same general paltitudes could be said about kissing on the cheek. just as risky if it’s mouth contact on open sores. someone alert the Europeans. just like with the nipple example, the risk factor is less about two people kissing the same person as any person kissing an open sore.
this is the very definition of fear mongering. taking a kernal of truth that is so small to be insignificant, and turning it into a item of debate. nipple contact is about as safe a way to give and receive pleasure that involves bodily fluids. it’s also notable that although lesions often reflect the souce of contraction, it is not always so.
my concern is that although this is done with good intent, it’s bad data. by definition it’s fear monngering and moralizing without any documented cases to back it. it’s a lot of feelings and opinions and moralizations about multiple partners. it’s being comingled with concerns about overall sexual health, which is a different topic.
Partner count raises risk for sex because semen, vaginal fluid, and rectal mucosa are efficient. Copy-pasting that math onto dry nursing as if it were a moral diagnosis of “the lifestyle” is sloppy. You can have a high partner count, use condoms for sex, get vaccinated for hep B, skip visible sores, and keep dry nursing in the low-risk column. Activity level and act-specific risk are not the same variable. This is feelings being passed off as medical advice.
now that said, if one person sucks on an open wound anywhere on ones body, and someone else sucks on an infected open sore, and that second person also has an open sore in their mouth.as far as the original conclusion that intimates that there are documented studies regarding increased risk nursing multiple people in a short period.
Nick’s scratch-ticket line is epidemiology of sex, where partner count is a strong, measured predictor of gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, syphilis. That dataset is intercourse and oral sex on genitals. Copying it onto dry suckling is an analogy, not a finding. There is no cohort, no case-control, no outbreak investigation of multi-partner ANR or dry nursing. there is no study because
we are a community, and as such, i agree we need to look out for each other. that means everyone should have a voice, but misatrributions and bad science should be called out to prevent people from feeling more shame and worry about aa beautiful, bonding but already stigmatized sensual act. if we want a sticky, can we at least clean up the bad infoermation and logical fallacies?
How do i know that this is damaging? i already had someone respond to me since this came out talkng about how they are “not interested in sharing germs with multiple people” and not finding “risky” behaviour exciting. Shaming and spreading inaccuerate information without any docummented basis in fact is hurtful and is no way to treat other community members. accusing a nipple of giving someone a cough as some sort of proof when a person exposed to a cold spent 3 hours sharing the same air and breathing in a droplet zone over the eyes, nose and suckling mouth of the other bends credulity, particularly when we aere talking about a chest cold, consistent with known sciencee about transmission of respiratory infections through water droplets expelled while breathing and infected with a cold.
i would ask again that we consider either removing the sticky or adjusting the statements therein to reflect the available science and provide accurate context regarding open wound care vs nursing specific concerns.Thank you for your kind words and contribution. I wanted to cover this because there is behaviour within the community from newbies that think there are no consequences to seeing multiple people over a short space of time.
I’m certainly not arguing against being informed or careful about your health. Active cold sores, thrush, cracked or bleeding nipples, someone obviously sick…common sense goes a LONG way here.
But I do think we’ve taken a few pretty big leaps between “the human mouth contains bacteria” and some of what’s being presented as biological fact.
If we’re talking about things like HIV, hepatitis, MRSA and disease transmission, I think we need to be really careful about separating established medical information from personal precautions and anecdotal experience. Brushing after every meal and waiting 30 minutes may be your routine, but that doesn’t necessarily make it medical guidance.
And the six-week cough? You may absolutely have caught something from her. But knowing she had seen two other people that week still doesn’t tell you where your cough came from. I could spend three hours with someone today and wake up sick tomorrow from the woman who sneezed on me in Target yesterday.
I actually think the health conversation is a good one to have. I just think once we start using words like HIV, hepatitis and MRSA, we owe people more than “this happened to me, therefore this is how it happened.”
Give me the science. Give me the sources. Then let grown adults decide what level of risk they’re comfortable with.
I have many different views on this. I will try to limit them to one or two of them.
I do think personal hygiene is important. But when it becomes such an obsession (in some cases) it really doesn’t make much sense and becomes harmful later. We are creating a generation of germaphobes whose immune system’s are degrading some because mommy had to bathe him or her in sanitizer multi times daily to avoid any possible exposure to germs. And so the child develops less of the normal immunities he/she would normally because he/she doesn’t get exposed to those things normal children naturally gravitate to as a child.
But the point I noticed no one here mentioned here is that there are MANY examples of the benefits of natural breastmilk that we discount totally. It isn’t saliva or vaginal fluid or blood. It is breastmilk! And because of that it has tons of disease-fighting, antibacterial/antiviral factors in it as well as tissue rebuilding factors. There is a reason that people that contract diseases like cancer and nasty infections (and have the knowledge of it) seek out breastmilk in their battle against it. It naturally fights MANY infections (viral and microbial) as well as possibly foreign cancer cells. I haven’t read if literature supports the cancer killing element or if it is more likely the health and nutrition improvement that is responsible. But the improvement seems undeniable either way. It does seem to need a good headstart though to fight against such a devastating foe though. So all-the-time nursing makes so much sense in every way, don’t you think?
The most impressive study I read about years ago was about African women who caught AIDS from their filandering husbands (very common in Africa). The wife in that culture is very dependent on their male partner to bring in much more money than she can because women are paid much less there. So, those women will often continue to have sex with their partner even if he is starting to have the symptoms of AIDS because she can’t afford education for her children without his income. But the statistics of her transmitting AIDS to a nursing child are impressively low because of the makeup of the lifegiving, disease fighting, and life enriching milk she carries in her to give to her children. Only after she gets into her later stages of the AIDS do those protections begin to fade and it becomes more dangerous to offspring to nurse. Now I am not suggesting that anyone nurse any AIDS patient at all. But I am saying that there is no unhealthy element in breastmilk from any healthy woman unless maybe the recipient is possibly lactose intoletant). This was a very interesting study and made me love nursing even more after reading. The study had many relevant points about this topic and was so impressive. Natural, unpasteurized breastmilk is soooooo good for us.
And a very well put statement, Lola. Thank you for your putting all this in perspective.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.