Yes, lots of people will do OWO but not CIM. Some people don't like the taste or see it as too intimate or..

The already tiny risk for HIV transmission via oral will be nil without CIM.

No decision you make about services will be 'wrong', if that's what you want to (not) do.

The already tiny risk for HIV transmission via oral will be nil without CIM.

That's not strictly true. The HIV virus can be present in pre-cum, and if you combine that with any possible sores or cuts in the mouth, there is still a risk but it is very, very small...

Cassie    I am all confused now...I guess there are so many CIM styles! LOL

"

letting it hit the back of your throat and swallow.

that would not be an option for me as I think I would feel suffocated. I prefer to have it on my tongue. Though I never tried to swallow it, I have a feeling that if I did I would feel the taste afterwards and this way I just wash my mouth.

About HIV, I am not so worried as I really see very few people and didn't have unprotected (coital should be the word) sex for years.

Without it, I can't  find a decent study suggesting it's a risk.

The following is from a literature review done in 1998 showing that studies have found examples of transmission without ejaculation. It goes on to cite four different studies.

"Seroconversion has occurred during receptive oro-genital sex both with[16] [17] and without [18] [19] ejaculation." (p6)

Edwards, C & Carne, C (1998) "Oral sex and the transmission of viral STIs" Sexually transmitted infections 74: 6-10 (I tried to attach the PDF, but it told me that the "upload folder is full". If you have a subscription, you can access the full article here)

One of the things I like about STI is that you can read the thing without paying and, yes, I've seen this article (and its twin on non-virals).

Those two are case reports, not studies, and the rest of the section shows the problems on relying on them: people under-report high risk behaviour. It's far more acceptable to say you caught HIV via sucking someone than to talk about your barebacking or IV drug use.

Apologies - I tend to use the word studies colloquially to refer to all sources. To be fair that is a very good point, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that transmission has indeed occurred in these instances, just the validity of the sources themselves. It would be equally possible to apply this logic to CIM sources, although perhaps to a lesser degree.

Taking a slightly different tack, there seem to be sources that show (link & link - unfortunately I have only been able to read the abstracts because my university is not a subcriber to these journals, so if there is any ... y'know ... massive methodological flaws that I don't know about, then do tell me) that HIV has been found in pre-ejaculate, and it therefore seems reasonable to intuit that there is a risk along the same vein as CIM.

It should be noted however that I am a humanaties student, and so am not familiar at all with journals in this area, so apologies if I seem uninformed. I am by no means trying to appear like I am expert in the area - I am not by a long way - I am just trying to iron out my own intuitions with the accepted knowledge.