View Full Version : 2002-2005 Archived Safe Sex Reports
Select "Add New Message" to post a message.
Safe sex is a relative thing, It is nearly imposible for a male to get AIDS from a blowjob unless he has open sores on his penis and the person sucking him has open sores in her/his mouth. It is also very unlikely that a man will get AIDS from intercourse with an infected woman, unless he has open sores on his penis.
The most common causes of getting AIDS are when drug addicts share needles, or from anal sex. Homosexual men where the first group to be identified with AIDS. Gay men that had anal sex would spread the virus to the men they fucked.
Once safe sex practices became common most gay men stopped having anal sex without condoms and that made the virus much less common among gay men. Unfortunately the virus still spread between drug users who would share needles.
Also the virus spread through third world countries that did not educate people about safe sex practices. In many parts of Africa the virus spreads through hetrosexual (male-female)sex. There are a few reasons for that and some of those include a common practice of anal sex to avoid pregnancy, a common practice of body peircing of the scrotum and penis in some cultures, and lack of health care to treat common venereal diseases that cause open wounds on the genitals.
This forum is for men who want to have sex with women so our main concern should be to avoid getting common sexually transmitted diseases.
Wearing condoms is the most effective way to do that, but you can still get herpes and some other viruses even if you wear condoms because they only cover part of you. There is always some risk.
Brett,
I wonder, let's say you get a bbbj from a girl who takes it in her mouth, or swallows. She may have had many guys before you that day or night. Wouldn't you say that shoots down the minimal risk when receiving a bj theory?
GuessWho,
Why would that make any difference? If she swallows the sperm it is gone and dead in an acidic environment. In her mouth, saliva has a negative affect on the HIV virus, although nothing like stomach acid. Don't you think she will have a glass of water, food or maybe even brush her teeth before having sex with you? The HIV virus is relatively delicate and is not going to last in her mouth for a long period of time. No cases of HIV thru kissing or oral sex have been reported. But there has been a study of homosexual men in SF who had routine oral sex without condoms with KNOWN HIV infected partners. At the end of the study, no one was HIV+. None of this proves anything except that it is extremely dificult to get the virus though oral transmission - either giving or receiving.
I suppose you are thinking that she has a mouthful of sperm at the point that she gives you a BBBJ and that the pool of HIV infected semen in her mouth could travel up your urethra and infect you. Not very likely - but I suppose possible. Try talking with her first! Or offer her a breath mint or one of the new Listerine Oral Care Strips - which supposedly kill germs, but at least make your breath smell good!
Hi guess who..glad to see you here. I think the last post covered it. It is not easy to get HIV through the penis. Even if she has full blown AIDS its not likely you would get it from her. The study quoted in the last post is correct, and many others involving prostitutes show that getting AIDS through sex is not easy. Almost none of the prostitutes studied had the virus except the ones that use needles to shoot drugs. The bad news is that a very high number of prostitutes are drug users so many did have the virus. Still a man is unlikely to get AIDS from an infected female unless he has open sores.(even then its not likely) The one very dangerous thing to do is anal sex. Thats because the ass is not meant for fucking and there is usually some bleeding involved, If the guy doing the fucking has AIDS then he may pass the virus to the woman or man he is fucking. Mostly men are reasonably safe from getting AIDS sexually unless they have open sores that come into contact with an infected persons body fluids. Or they allow another man to fuck them in their ass. Gay men get it mostly through anal sex, oral sex is not a high risk. The most common way of getting AIDS now is through sharing needles to use drugs. But if you already have a sexually transmitted disease then you may have the open sores that could allow the virus into your body.................The simple way to say it is there are two high risk things that you should never do. ..1......Do not share needles to shoot up drugs. ..2...Do not allow a man to fuck you in your ass.......If you avoid those two things you are at low risk...........
Brett,
While I agree with almost your entire post, you leave the impression that unprotected sex with a prostitute is OK. I would NEVER have intercorse with a pro (vaginal or anal) without using a condom. All reputable sources recommend this, not only for AIDS prevention, but all other STD's. BBBJ is probably safe from an AIDS perspective, but other STD's are possible( i.e. herpes). I always use a condom for BJ's because it makes me feel safer and I can sleep at night knowing I have protected myself at the highest possible level. I also use anti-bacterial soap or "Handi-Wipes" after sex for the same reason. Needless to say I have never had any STD, but it is likely that my level of protection is a bit of overkill. But either way, unprotected intercourse is a very bad idea. . .
-P
Brett,
Let me add that AIDS is not the only STD you need fear ... even if you don't wear a condom to protect you from AIDS, wear one to protect you from a multitude of other nasty (very contagious) STD's.
David
Hey guys,
I appreciate your responses. I'll also add I never have intercourse with a prostitute. I guess I'm just scared shitless, protected or not. The only thing I ever do is get bj's. But I'll admit, sometimes its a bbbj. A while back I thought I had something. When I urinated it felt like fire was coming out, no discharge though. I immediatley saw a doctor who specialized in STD's. He took a urine sample and said I had nothing. I guess if you have an infestion of some sort that white blood cells collect as they fight it off and show up in urine. He did tell me that alot of caffeine or soda can sometimes cause this to happen as well. needless to say I drank gallons of water and was fine. Anyone ever have anything like that?
There are multiple causes of burning with urination(which in medical jargon is called "dysuria"), but I am not aware of caffeine being one of them. I am glad you're doing better now.
There is no question that certain types of sexual activity carry a higher risk and certain others are relatively "low" risk. In my opinion however, when it comes to the HIV infection, even a "low" risk of exposure is too high a risk. Any prostitute is HIV positive unless proven otherwise. Therefore I recommend condoms for any kind of sexual activity with a prostitute -no exceptions. Have fun, but do it intelligently. J.G.
J.G.
I hear ya, I didn't know about the caffeine either. However, he's the doc and I put trust in that. I told a buddy about him and it turned out he coincidentally saw him previously for a similar episode. He needed treatment though unfortunately. The doc also said I may have had something but fought it off. Who knows, but thankfully nothing showed up. I've heard horror stories of having to get your dick reamed, then antibiotics. I guess that's heaven compared to other things you can catch.
Easy Rider
06-01-02, 23:26
Braces are dangerous. They can cause open sores on the young girls gums. And that can cause her to get aids, if she's going down on some guy who has aids, and gets some of his come onto that sore.
Current fad amoung young hookers in Matamoros is to buy braces. Even though they might not really need em. They are fashionable. But they make me nervous.....
Does the doctor agree with that point?
Curious I've been hangin out extensively with ****** for the last three years in Matamoros, and have yet to even hear of my first aids victim. But I've also yet to meet a needle using druggie there. There is a certain amount of MJ, coke, and crack, but no mainlining of anything.
Thank God.....
Hi guys, it is important to use condoms because AIDS is not the only STD out there. Also keep in mind that a condom does not protect you from everything. Herpes can still be transmitted because the condom does not cover your whole body and any skin contact can lead to possible transmission.(most likely at the base of the penis) Also a condom will not prevent you from getting an infestation of lice commonly called "crabs" and crabs do not start to itch until a week or two after you get them. (crabs are easy to get rid of with a cream you get at the drug store) I have had unprotected oral sex with dozens of women and protected sex with more than I can count . I have never had any STD but thats just dumb luck. The rate of AIDS has gone way down as a sexually transmmited disease because gay men understand the risk of anal sex, but other sexually transmited diseases are still going strong so wear a condom and if your in a relationship you should think twice about your personal risk
Since this is the WSG, there is another dimension of safe sex besides protecting yourself from STDs that I would like to add.
That is.. sex without getting into "trouble." I only deal with incalls and only apartment workers. I don't want anyone knowing where I live or in my house. I prefer to be one-on-one with the woman, I don't like other guys or even other women around which is why I prefer apartments.
I don't deal with street action- much too risky for me. Once or twice I hung out with the fellas and had a little street action but I wouldn't do it alone. I also prefer foreign women. They're usually very respectful and really want to please you. I've also noticed that they are more comfortable with their sexuality and enjoy it more. I've had many situations where I paid for 30 mins. and ended up staying for over an hour because they enjoyed it so much and didn't want to stop. One even asked me for my phone number telling me that she wanted to see me outside of "the business." It may seem limiting but I feel comfortable with my approach to this. I don't need to do this but I love women and this is a way to have plenty without all of the headaches...lol.
Excellent point. Safe sex has many parameters. Not getting robbed is key to safe sex. Picking up street walkers is very dangerous. They look like they are alone but they are not. BUT I don't think incall is that safe either. You never know who is in the closet or filming you or taking down your plate number to blackmail you. I like to have the woman come to my hotel (outcall) and would use hotels even if it were my home town. I know this drives up the cost in the short run but there is cost and then there is cost.
I prepare the room by, among other things, disconnecting the phone and putting it in the safe along with my other valuables. I have everything like the fee, condoms, lube, toys, etc., ready in the bed side table so I don't have to let the gal out of my sight. I make sure to have the correct change but then I have some extra money stashed in a convenient place in case I need some extras. This helps you stick to a budget also.
You gotta watch your ID as close as you watch your wallet. Not only are stolen IDs valuable by themselves but there is the potential for blackmail and burglary. Everybody knows about keeping stuff in their socks but I like to also tape the wad to the inside of the sock.
Also, if you order a hooker from a cabbie, don't give him your room number. Meet the gal in the bar or lobby. This is also why I don't like ordering hookers from bellhops or desk clerks; they already know your room number.
Play safe, live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse.
Dickhead
I agree with you guys on the many parameters to safe sex. I myself don't do incall. Reason being is there's your room, the shit in it, and your car all with your name on them. Also, you don't know whose going to show up there. I can see why you'd do it that way, it's just not for me. Although street action is risky, I prefer it. In fact I know where a number of girls hang in different towns so many times I see the same one over and over. I also enjoy the hunt, some nights nothing happens but it's just as fun to scout and try new areas. Anyway, I also enjoy the variety which also makes it fun. You just need to play it safe in more ways than one. But man, is this shit addicting or what?
Very good points about incall. Believe it or not being filmed actually crossed my mind once. If the room has a closet in it, when the girl leaves to let me get undressed, sometimes I check!
I don't have to worry about someone taking down my plate number since I don't have car but that's a very good point to keep in mind.
It's true that you don't know who is going to show up or if someone else has a key to the apartment etc... I guess that's the major risk factor here.
This takes me back to the point about only patronizing foreign women. Most of those antics are usually associated with American or "Americanized" establishments. Many of the women I've patronized can barely speak english never mind conjure up some sophisticated scheme. They're usually new to this country, as I usually find out in conversation, and just don't want any trouble. It's possible someone could be behind them doing it so you still have to play it safe.
Very good points DH & GW... thanks I'll keep my eye on those closets...lol
Hi,
I shall admit it, I am one of those crazy guys who like having sex with addict girls. Hey, let me take cover before flaming away! I like them for reasons of my own, but I only get blowjobs with condom, so I feel pretty safe... at least as far as AIDS is concerned. Also, I carefully wash my intimate parts as soon as I get back home.
What do the experts out there think about the safety issue in this case? Are there widely spread sexual diseases that can be transmitted by mere spittle? Is kissing their breasts and caressing their asses safe? Should I go to a doctor and check for sexual deseases on a regular basis?
All tips appreciated -- please excuse my stuttering English.
Viator
Cum On Her
06-10-02, 01:32
I like to have the rush of sex without a condom. I don't know what it is.
I always have conversation with the girl first, then if she sounds alright I'll let her give me head without a condom.
If I am horny enough for a piece of her ass I ask her questions like do you use drugs and how many guys do you have sex with on any given night, also I check her **** for any scrapes or scars.
If they act fishy I fuck them but with a condom.
If they say they use drugs, i ask what type most are weed and crack if any.
If it is not a needle drug I fuck them without a condom.
If they say they only sleep with a couple guys a night then I fuck them without a condom, aslong as I believe them.
I say play by your own rules.
Be safe and as long as you like it do it.
happy hunting
-- also I check her **** for any scrapes or scars.
Cumhoner,
I wonder what a street ***** would say if I asked her to let me inspect her pussy for scrapes... :-] Are you a gynecologist, or what?
Besides, it only happened once that a heroin addict admitted to me of being such -- and I asked lots of them. With time I have learned that what they say is totally worthless; they're accustumed to lying to themselves and to others.
But maybe you're better than I am at talking with women... ;-)
Viator
Shit, don't tell me you've found scrapes!
John Dough
06-10-02, 20:39
For those of you who don't use a condom, have you tried applying Derma Shield for protection? Their Derma Plus and Derma Med products are supposed to have an anti-microbial agent that resists viruses and bacteria. It is a foam in an aerosol can that you rub on and let dry, and is intended to be used on your hands. If you have tried it for this unusual purpose, have you caught anything while using it? I'm sure it's not as good as a condom, but for those who don't use one, it might be better than nothing.
Is it just me, or are condoms a little on the short side? It seems they leave a small area at the base uncovered. It would be nice if they made one that flared at the bottom, and was long enough and wide enough to cover the testicles. I was thinking about getting some large sized ones, and see if I can stretch them this way. Has anybody tried this? Did it work? Bell bottoms are back in fashion!
What she can do with your plate number is find out where you live (public record, at least in my state), which happened to a married friend of mine. Then she looked up his phone number and tried to blackmail him.
So let's be careful, but not paranoid, out there.
Dickhead
jeffjimman
07-16-02, 22:27
Hey, Viator and Cumonher, I have a question for you.
Since you like to have sex without a condom (I do this with girlfriends after a few weeks), did you get any STDs, even "harmless" ones like herpes? Or did you have it already? After all, 15% have the big H.
I used to be paranoid around gfs, but after all, as long as you don't get AIDS or hep B, it's not really that big a deal.
will i get any sex diseases by finger-fucking a prosititue ?
someone told me i will catch the disease thru the sweat
on my fingers if I put it inside the girl's vagina, is this true ???
will i catch AIDS even with the condoms ? i am worried 'cus
normally condom doesnt cover the penis all the way to my
balls.l
Barber,
.
Just wash your hands afterwards and you will be fine. The bigger problem is finding a PRO who will let you finger-fuck her. I find it strange, but many refuse. They are afraid you will have something (germs,sperm) on your hands which you would not have on a lubricated condom. Many strip club girls have let me finger them. But SW's and massage patlor women don't seem to like it.
Barber, Viator and others,
HIV is primarily a blood-borne virus. Yes, it is definitely present in semen, but it is transmitted mainly by blood to blood contact. That is why it is easily caught by people having unprotected anal sex (the lining of the anus tears) and from sharing needles. For the virus to get into your body it needs an entry point, like a cut or tear. Keep in mind though that the virus is extremely small, so even a microscopic tear that you can't even see may be a threat.
HIV is only found in minute amounts in vaginal fluid, (although it's different if she has her period), and is basically non-existent in saliva. You cannot catch HIV from someone drooling on you or sweating on you!!! You cannot catch HIV from french kissing or from caressing a girls ass.
Blowjobs without a condom...you can get chlamydia, gonohorrea, herpes, and a few other nasties. WITH a condom, you can still get herpes if her lips touch your balls or base of the penis.
Sex without a condom...you can catch the works!!
Sex WITH a condom...you can still catch herpes, genital warts and molluscum contagiosum, as well as scabies and other skin to skin bugs.
Viator...If you are only having covered blowjobs from girls you have basically no risk of catching anything, so long as she doesn't put herpes infected lips on the skin that the condom doesn't cover.
Barber...you cannot catch anything from finger-fucking. There may be a risk if she has her period and you have a cut on your finger though. Wash your hands straight after doing it.
Proko...The main reason many hookers don't like fingers inside them is that sharp fingernails can tear the lining of the vagina, leaving them open to infection if the condom was to break during the sex. Strippers may not have to worry about that sort of thing. Dirty fingers can also cause infections. And yes, some girls are concerned that you may have touched your penis (and got pre-cum on your fingers) before you insert them.
just wondering.............has anyone ever heard of a person being infected with hiv after visiting a massage parlor? i have been thinking about trying one out but i am reluctant because of the risk of contracting hiv.
SG - No, I haven't, but then it is VERY hard to figure out just where and when a certain person gets infected. Knowing something about about AMP's in the US, I would say it is one of the safer alternatives. Why?
.
Usually the girls live on site and know each other and the "house mother" who runs the operation, keeps track of $$ and cooks the food. IV drug use is highly unlikely and seeing men outside of the AMP is strictly prohibited. Most of these women have children and work a month and fly back to their families with money. In most AMP's cleanliness is important and the girls are taught how to "inspect" the men while bathing them or during the massage. Also, despite what you read here, the usual sex act is a HJ or a BJ with condom, both very safe. In short, it depends what you do and how you do it, but in general I think AMP's are some of the safest alternatives.
.
My description of an AMP is from knowing a local Korean operation and may not apply to all cities and parlors. For instance SF and NYC would be different, I assume. I got to know the girls and house mother quite well and they told me much of how things worked. Surprisingly - or maybe not - the more I hung around this place, eating dinner with the girls, talking, watching TV (their favorite pastime), the less sexual it all seemed. It quickly lost its erotic allure.
thanks for replying. i live in a relatively small town but there are plenty of massage parlors around. i always figured that it would be fairly safe to try one but was not too sure. i still don't know if i will go through with it or not but the information you have told me will make it easier to decide. just wondering...seeing as you has a chance to get to know the girls, do you know if they are tested regularly?
The women saw their Gyno. once or twice a year, but did that include AIDS testing? I doubt it. Truthfully I just don't know, but doubt it. If you are interested in the AMP scene, go and get a massage and HJ or covered BJ. That should be safe as anything. Try to judge the health-consciousness of the women and go from there. As RN points out, if BBBJ or FS without a condom is available, then anything goes. You can have alot of fun at an AMP without FS, which will always cost you more. If you have never had a body shampoo or had a small oriental woman walk on your back, you are in for a treat. However, not all AMPs offer these services, but many do.
zel66 -- what you have is potential exposure, which means that your chances of catching something have gone up because the condom broke, but as Brett notes your chances are still pretty low. If the sex worker is telling you the truth and she always uses a condom, then your risk is considerably lower still. The problem, of course, is that you don't really know whether what she said is true, so you're likely to obsess on this.
The only study I know of that's looked at AMPs was one that looked at behaviors of sex workers in San Francisco, which found that, yes, all of the workers did wear condoms during intercourse with customers, but not always in their private lives, so there was still some degree of risk. (Of course, three quarters didn't really have relationships in their private lives, but that's a different issue.)
Statistically speaking, Asian women in the US have a very low rate of HIV infection, but nothing I know of has singled out rates for AMPs. Your chances of getting HIV from a single encounter during vaginal sex are fairly low if neither of you have open wounds or sores, but, of course, any chance is enough to make someone nervous, and someone is going to be that one in however many who's the exception.
Since you're nervous -- get checked out. The odds are heavily in your favor, but having peace of mind is never too expensive or big a hassle, in my book.
Joe and Brett
Thanks for the replies. I sure hope you guys are right. i have been worried sick about it ever since. I am going to take a few months off and i am going to go get tested when the time is right. Just to make sure.
If i do test negative, then from then on i think i will stick to handjobs and covered bj's. I don't want to go through this stress again. =)
hey guys. this may seem like a stupid question. but is it possible to catch anything from titty-fucking a girl. an infection or something? just curious. do any of these massage parlor girls allow you to do this?
SG,
In most AMPs I know, there is not enough titty to get the job done. Remember, these are asian women. Good Luck
zel66 -- let's all face it, going with prostitutes is raising your risk factors in that you're going to be with women who have multiple partners, so the safest thing is either onanism or monogamy. That said, certainly your handjob/covered bj approach would be safest. For what it's worth, there are plenty of us who've gone through your exact experience, myself included, with no ill effects.
My take on it is this -- life isn't safe, and life without sex isn't life. As long as there's a condom involved, you're really pretty protected, even given the possibility of breakage or slippage. The mistake I've seen at lots of AMPs, which surprises me at this point in the game, is the use of baby oil or some such lube with condoms, which breaks latex down and can lead to breakage. I'd be curious to know if that's the case in your scenario.
sg128 -- perhaps you can get a rash or a complaint if you're an extravagant shooter :) but there aren't any STDs to be worried about with tit-fucking. And massage girls who actually have enough assets to make it possible certainly often allow for the possibility.
zel66,
Your post really made me smile. Your choice to avoid AMPs until you are sure of your STI status is exactly the sort of responsible and compassionate attitude that I was trying to encourage with my last post. Thank you for showing me that I was wrong about some men :) I also hope you didn't think I was specifically targetting you with my little rant about STI screening...there have been a long line of similar queries made both here and in the old forum, and I just thought it was time to make a general statement. Good luck with your tests.
Good luck to you too gonzo56...I'm sure you will be fine. Just wondering though...did you JUST go for HIV testing, or did you get the "works" done?
The thing is guys, there is way too much emphasis being put on HIV in these discussions. By comparison, HIV is not really a risk factor that should be getting quite this much attention. What about life long diseases like herpes or genital warts (which can be responsible for cervical cancer in your female partners)? What about going insane and then dying from syphillis? What about chlamydia, which can infect your wife or girlfriend but cause no symptoms, until she is put in hospital with PID and told she is infertile? Or worse, the untreated infection or the ectopic pregnancy that could occur because of the internal scarring KILLS her! If HIV was REALLY the "epidemic" that many of you are treating it like, every second sexually active person on earth would be infected. The fact is, it is NOT that easy to catch...the other diseases ARE! Yes, you should always be aware of HIV, but it should NOT be the only reason that you get tested or the only reason that you use condoms.
PS...anExpat,
Many diseases can enter a man's penis through the urethra...and HIV is one of them. However, HIV usually needs an "entry point" such as a cut or sore to actually enter your system. If you have some other infection like an STI, thrush or a bladder infection that has caused irritation to the skin just inside the penis, there could be cuts or tiny abrasions that could become an entry point. Friction during long, vigourous sex sessions, especially without lube, can cause these abrasions too.
For what it's worth, RN, I think the scary part about HIV is that you're pretty well toast if it develops into AIDS, and even the best treatment at this point is a) expensive and b) nothing guaranteed. By contrast, most of the other STDs are curable as long as they're detected before they do serious damage (takes a long time to do the insanity thing with syphillis) or at least manageable. I think people tend to see most STDs as things that for the most part you can cure or survive and HIV/AIDS as something that you've got to continuously deal with until such point that it kills you. We've got lots of examples of people who have lived long productive lives with the other STDs, but because it's still early in the game we don't have the same examples from AIDS.
Of course you're dead on correct that all these other things are actually statistically far greater cause for worry, but to some extent. rightly or wrongly, people tend to approach STDs as something that can happen if you pack the wrong clothes on a trip, and HIV/AIDS as what can happen if you don't pack your parachute carefully.
Joe,
Like you said, most STDs are curable or manageable as long as they're detected before they do serious damage. What I'm getting at is that some people NEVER have a test unless they have an accident, and then they often just run out and request an HIV test and nothing else. Any doctor worth their salt would hopefully suggest a full screening as well as the blood test, but that won't necessarily happen. If you NEVER have a test, the chances of the doctor diagnosing the illness before your wife is infertile from PID or before the syphilis insanity sets in, is slim to none.
Personally I am terrified of HIV...just like everyone else is. But I was always much more afraid of catching the so-called "minor" STDs, because I knew the risk of exposure was so much greater.
I guess what bothers me most is the lack of education that most people have about STDs. I mean, really.... illnesses like HIV and others can KILL you! Would you drive a car without learning where the brake is? Would you jump out of a plane without knowing how to pull the ripcord? I am honestly surprised that so many people all over the world are having sex with NO idea about STDs. How can you possibly take proper precautions against disease if you don't understand the modes of transmission?
I am also surprised that grown adults are often too embarrassed to go to a doctor for STD screening. We are adults, and doctors are professionals. Walking into a surgery and dropping your pants is hardly emotionally devastating. I've heard heaps of my friends say "But what if they find something? I'd be so humiliated"...in my opinion that means they know that there is a chance that they MAY have something, so they definitely SHOULD be going to a doctor!
Oh, I get it -- you're in favor of sensible behavior when it comes to both sex and health. Must be that rubber fetish thing :) Considering the low number of people who even get annual health check-ups, I'd say that's an uphill climb. Grown adults are, I think, generally afraid that doctors will tell them that they have to change their behavior or, worse, will deliver some kind of bad news that will require change or follow-up, so the tendency is to use the ignorance-is-bliss approach. And that's regardless of whether the ailment has to do with sexually transmitted diseases. I'm not one to talk in this regard by any stretch, either, though I do get tested and a physical on a reasonably regular basis.
But I agree with you -- I don't at all understand the idea of going to a doctor and getting screened for HIV without doing the whole battery of tests. AIDS rings a personal bell for me because I've had people I know die from it, and do so terribly, but there aren't exactly any of the various nasties I'm in a hurry to get. I'm lucky enough to have been fairly sexually active for many years in a variety of locales and situations without ever catching a thing, and I chalk that up to being reasonably fastidious about using a safe-sex approach (and always doing so for penetrative sex.)
Well I don't know about a rubber fetish...but I AM rather partial to PVC catsuits! ;) heh heh
PVC? With all those nasty environmental and health issues related to doixins? Guess you are an advocate for high-risk behavior after all... :eek:
Guess you are an advocate for high-risk behavior after all...
The biggest risk involved with PVC catsuits, is that any man within eyeshot suffers a sudden and immediate shortage of blood flow to the brain! *wicked grin*
i meant, she said she does not expect me to test positive. doh!
RN, i only had the hiv test done so far. i know i'm stupid and i should be tested for other std's. but like joe_zop said.....hiv is the one people most worry about and i am no different. i will go get tested for other std's later but for me it is most important to know first that i don't have hiv. because to put it bluntly......i don't want to die.
The CDC defines kissing as low-risk activity for HIV transmission. There's a really small chance of HIV passing via kissing, but only if both you and your partner have cuts or sores in your mouths or if one does and the kissing is prolonged and intense enough to damage the other's mouth or lips. The bottom line is that saliva doesn't contain or pass HIV. Syphilis can pass via kissing under mostly the same conditions as HIV. The main risks are non-STD -- glandualr fever, mono, and oral herpes is also a possibility, but that's reasonably common, and different from the genital kind.
jeffjimman
09-11-02, 13:35
Viagra + Ecstacy?
I have no problem getting erections with my gf... except when I tried the happy pill: my Johnson withered. It wasn't a big deal, since we were happy anyway, but having sex would definitely be a plus!
So, I wonder if anyone has experice with V+E. Is the full 100mg way too much? Cut it in half? Quarters? Side effects?
I'd agree with Joe and Proko, Paddy. (Of course, don't forget I'm not a real RN!) I know myself and other working girls used to shower with Dettol liquid soap after a booking, which is an anti-bacterial body wash. We also left it in the showers so that clients could use it before and after the booking too. I'm not positive about exactly how effective it is in stopping skin-to-skin infections, but my reasoning is that is definitely can't hurt! It makes sense to me that washing off any nasties that haven't yet gained access to your skin, has to be better than doing nothing at all.
The best way to avoid skin-to-skin infections (as Joe mentioned) is a visual inspection. The majority of those types of infections have very visible symptoms, and when sores, etc are present, it is usually the most infectious time. Obviously not all diseases are visible though, and some are only visible SOME of the time (for example, herpes is still infectious during the "shedding" period...shortly after the blisters have healed...but you can't see it). It's worth looking at pictures of various STDs, so you can be sure to pick them up straight away during the inspection. There are some good sites on the net with graphic pictures of various infections. The "dick check" provides added protection for the working girls, so theres no reason why clients shouldn't do the same.
Personally, I'd be careful using powerful things such as alcohol swabs if you are intending on having sex again soon after. (Like in a "two cum" party or an allnighter). That stuff can really irritate your skin, which I would presume may actually make you more susceptible to infection on the second round. That's not medical fact of course, just my opinion. I've seen people break out in a rash from using detergents and anti-bacterial creams that were too strong for their sensitive skin. You might want to try it out prior to actually using it with a working girl, just in case.
Proko,
Yes, I have had men who asked if they could "have a bit of a look". I have also had men who try to sneak a peek at things as the service starts, but are too shy to ask outright. I would always turn my body a bit for them, to make sure they could see properly. Sometimes I would even give those guys a bit of an "excuse" to look at things closely...for example opening my legs and saying "So what do you think?" (Sorry, that sounds crass on the board, but it's very different during a service! LOL) It gives them a chance to have a good look, and then say something corny like "It looks perfect. Seeing it makes me wanna...." instead of having to mention STDs at all. Often (and this will sound even more crass) I would sit on his chest and bend over towards his penis, raising my bottom in the air. To him it seemed like I was just playing with his dick when I was actually doing a DC, and it also meant that he got a good chance to check me out too! Even if a man demanded that I lay down while he checked me out by torchlight...I'd be fine with it. The fact that a man is concerned enough about his own health to actually do an inspection, makes me feel a lot safer.
I do agree that many women might be offended though...I guess that's the difference between someone who approaches the job as a "professional courtesan" and someone who just wants you to do them and get out. I would like to think that I made my clients feel comfortable enough with me to actually ask straight out if they had concerns. I also had nothing to hide.
I never did an actual "dick check" in the whole time I worked. I did what you mentioned...I would blend the check into the service so that the client didn't feel uncomfortable being under scrutiny. Once I was sure that there were no visible diseases I would do the "Lets turn down the lights a little" thing. I know not all girls will make things so easy for you to take a look, but hopefully there would be enough lights on time for you to at least take a quick peek. If all else fails, I would actually ask outright. If you say it nicely...or even say that you want to look at her because it turns you on...I think most girls would be ok with it.
RN,
I read your post on the smelly discharge. Interesting enough, however I've been in that situation. Once this girl hopped in my car and I swear it smelled like rotting fish. Needless to say I discharged her out of my car, nicely of course. I used the ol' I forgot my wallet line. One other time was with a girlfriend of mine. I went down on her and almost gagged. She was clean as far as I knew, maybe just bad timing. Eeeeew!
Hi RN,
In reference to your 9-20 posting you revealed that you never caught any type of disease. I'm greatly impressed. Good for you.
When one uses a condom at all times and correctly it negates everything covered by the latex. However, what about areas NOT covered by the condom and skin-to skin contact near the lower abdomen that can lead to Herpes, HPV, Molluscum and other viruses?
You stated that you always used an anti-bacterial soap afterward. In your opinion, did this anti-bacterial soap wash off the potential viruses and insulate you as a result from getting infected? What's your opinion?
I guess that my greatest fear is contracting Herpes or HPV outside of the latex barrier around the groin or lower abdomen. Herpes and HPV cannot be cured and represent (it seems) the greatest threat for condom users. If we could solve this problem sex with a Pro would be almost risk free for both parties. Any other hints beyond anti-bacterial soap???
Thanks for your expertise as always.
Just as an aside on the issue of anti-bacterial soaps -- it's probably worth noting that in reality ALL soaps are anti-bacterial for the most part, and according to one study, the use of specifically labelled anti-bacterial soap basically increases the effectiveness of germ killing from 99.4% to 99.6%. So people shouldn't really feel they have to run around carrying their own little bottles of anti-bacterial in order to be safe from surface gremlins -- a good washing with regular soap is for all intents and purposes just as effective.
Hi Joe,
Yes, I've read the same thing in reference to anti-bacterial vs. regular soap. Studies indicate that there is no real difference.
To take matters on step further, my Dermatologist stated that using alcohol wipes to cleanse the non-covered condom areas around the groin and lower abdomen would be even more effective that soap in terms of killing viruses. What do you think?
Admittedly, it would look a bit strange wiping yourself with alcohol towelettes after sex. The girl is going to be wondering what this crazy American is up to now?
Alcohol wipes might be more effective, but there are two things -- first, how much more effective does one really need than the 99.4% of germ killing that regular soap does, and second, frequent use of alcohol wipes on sensitive areas not only doesn't sound like much fun but it might also cause irritation, which would actually increase your risk should you go a second round.
The girl's gonna wonder even more about the crazy American if he wipes himself off and then hops around saying, "Ow!" :)
Hi RN,
Been reading your post. I would love to hear your opinion on the following story.
Without naming names, I read about a guy that travels all over the world (mainly southeast asia) having sex, WITHOUT CONDOMS, and then writes the what,when and where about it. I am assuming the #s are in the thousands. He insists he has never had a STD or tested pos. for AIDS. What he says he does is "pound down a beer" before he has sex and immediately after sex he withdraws, takes a good healthy piss, washes his penis with anti-bacterial soap. Next, he uses Hydrogen Peroxide to rinse it. Then he spreads open his penis and forces some Hydrogen Peroxide up his urethra as far as possible.
What is your take on this?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Peterman
Hiya Peterman,
I might just take this opportunity to add (for those who didn't know me before my handle change) that although I HAVE done extensive professional training in STIs, I am NOT a nurse. It's just coincidence that RN also stands for Registered Nurse. Just so you know... :)
Anyway, I would say that the guy you described is either a) incredibly stupid and probably lying about not catching anything or b) incredibly lucky. I mean..it's certainly possible. Men, being the insertive partner, are less at risk of disease than women are. And even if you had slept with 5000 women, if it happened that none of those particular girls had a disease, then you wouldn't catch anything anyway. On the other hand, you may only sleep with ONE woman and catch herpes. Luck of the draw.
Personally though, I find it very hard to believe. But I don't know enough about it to cast judgement. For instance, how often does he get tested? Some infections clear up by themselves. If for example, he had molluscum or genital warts, it's possible that he could have caught it, spread it around half of southeast Asia, and then got rid of it, BEFORE he even had a test done. And he says he has never tested positive for HIV...could that be because he has never had a test at all? (I'm not saying that is the case of course...just that it's a possibility). And if he IS being tested and his last test was less than six months ago, he could have it right now and not know it yet, thanks to the window period. Either way HIV is a lot harder to catch than most infections, so to sleep with heaps of people and not catch it, really isn't a major achievement.
Peroxide in the eye of the penis has gotta be one of the most counter-productive methods I've ever heard of. (Plus, the thought of it brings tears to my eyes...and I don't even have a penis!! LOL) I would think that it would burn all hell out of your dick, leaving it raw and inflamed and just begging for some nasty bug to creep in there next time you have sex. Washing up after sex certainly can't hurt at all, and pissing straight after sex helps prevent cystitis in women and "cleans out" the urethra for men so that's also a good idea, but I wouldn't rely on it to stop disease transmission. Like I said though...I'm not really a nurse.
Paddy,
Everything we enjoy comes with a certain degree of risk. Drinking can cause hangovers, smoking can cause cancer, and skydiving can cause rather large amounts of pain if the parachute doesn't open! LOL There are heaps of consequences to having sex, from infections to pregnancy...and yet we continue to do it. I think there is a fine line between being concerned for your health, and worrying yourself into abstinence. Sex is not ever "safe". We can do our best to make it SAFER, but there will always be the chance that something will go wrong. It doesn't matter whether you're with a hooker or your wife...you can never really be sure unless you can guarantee you know their sexual history and/or their health status at that EXACT moment (not a month ago when they had the test, but they've slept with five people since). All you can do is use condoms and check for visible signs of infection before you have sex. Maybe scrubbing with soap is good too, maybe it does nothing at all. I don't know for sure, but washing off any germs on your skin before they "take hold" makes sense to me....and it certainly can't do any harm!
When it comes down to it though, the only way to be TOTALLY safe is complete abstinence. And I for one am not willing to take my sexual health quite THAT seriously!! LOL
Ferolga777
10-08-02, 22:18
washing your winky with hydrogen peroxide seems like a good idea until you do it and then you realize that it wasn't [experience speaking here]
i'm sure this has been asked many times before, but i can't seem to find the answer so please bare with me.
how dangerous is it to receive a bbbj? i have a hard time believing it is dangerous since they do it in pornos while using condoms for anal and vaginal sex. it doesnt make sense that they would bother using condoms if it didnt matter any way since they were exposing themselves by doing oral. porno makers are losing millions for using condoms.
I'll quote RN from a previous message -- "Blowjobs without a condom...you can get chlamydia, gonohorrea, herpes, and a few other nasties. WITH a condom, you can still get herpes if her lips touch your balls or base of the penis. "
So, yes, there's a risk, but it's considerably lower, and with the exception of herpes, all of those are curable. You're missing the big three -- HIV, syphilis and hepatitis.
I'm curious about the last statement, RN -- why won't those sex workers you mention use condoms from an open box, considering the individual ones are still wrapped? I presume it's a fear they've been somehow tampered with but why exactly would a guy want to do that, considering that he's still going to be wearing it, and thus still losing the degree of sensation that comes with that? Is there some sort of history here?
The 'BYO condoms in a new box' thing is something quoted by workers in Oz, America, Canada and England. I have also seen men tell each other, on boards like this, that THEY have been told the same thing by working girls. I was just passing it on. To tell the truth, I have never personally had a client bring his own condoms for me to use. However, I do think that I would refuse him if he whipped one out of his pocket. I know that *I* have looked after my condoms correctly and I can't really be certain about his, so for my own protection I will only use the ones I'm certain about. HE doesn't know whether I look after MY condoms or not either...but that's not my problem. *grin* As the service provider, *I* am required to have the appropriate personal protective equipment available and I am required to know how to use it properly. (And I hold governments and law enforcement solely responsible for the fact that there are sex workers who don't know the first thing about safe sex). You can't provide your own syringes or gloves when you go to a doctor...you can't bring your own needles when you get a tattoo...
Anyway, I like to have my own condoms that I know taste good! :)
Germany as well? Wow...I would kinda expect it from the other countries you mentioned, but I didn't realise it was like that in Germany. I don't know much about the industry in Germany, and I guess I pictured it as similar to Amsterdam and other European places. Out of interest...and I 'spose I probably already know the answer, but I'm gonna ask anyway...if the guy doesn't bring a condom, what happens then? Do the girls just do it without?
As for tasty condoms, there's a brand here called Glyde that make Vanilla, Wildberry and Blueberry flavoured condoms...they are soooo yummy! They taste just like lollies (or candy or whatever you call them where you live!), and they smell delicious too. The lubricant on regular condoms tastes pretty foul, so if there's no flavoured ones around I will go for whatever condoms have the least lubricant on them.
But please guys, don't EVER give a girl a condom that's got spermicide on it!!! Every working girl I've ever known has put one of them in her mouth...ONCE. It's not something you'd ever be stupid enough to do twice! LOL They burn your tongue and make your lips go numb, and the taste stays in your mouth for hours no matter how many times you rinse it. Ewwwwwwwww.
RN -
The lubricants used can get on guys' nerves too. I've used brands where the lubricant started to get a rather pungent odor after a fair amount of condom use (or was it my imagination?).
I'd be interested as well what these girls do if you didn't bring a condom. If I was wary of pregnancy, STD, germs of any kind, as any normal person should be, I'd sure as hell carry a pack in my purse, even if I expected the guy to bring them.
Whenever I've used a condom that was "non-standard", I've made it very clear to my partner (paid or unpaid) what I'd be slipping on BEFORE she got the nasty surprise of an unpleasant or unusual sensation/taste.
Cmon guys, just because we pay them for their bodies, don't be rude and put something noxious in their mouths.
It's an interesting problem regarding lube, isn't it, though since Nonoxynol 9 now appears to have nothing to do with preventing HIV infection and may actually expose women to more danger, spermacide really can't be recommended in any event. So, RN, you're saying that from a sex worker perspective, you absolutely prefer the unlubed kinds, right?
Chris, you've spent time in SE Asia, and you know that lack of a brought condom in that region means a) nothing's going to happen and the deal's off or b) the woman is going to offer to do without or c) she will actually have a condom, but seeks to save money by using yours or most definitely d) it's time to stop panting and run the the store.
And given that prior to the recent UN study regarding Nonoxynol that it was highly recommended to use those kinds of condoms, this is something that didn't get nearly enough play, especially given not only the clear counterindications for use but the basically very nasty taste involved. I suspect very few people really have it in their brains yet (and it's certainly nothing the industry is trumpeting) that they should probably avoid condoms with spermicide for disease protection, and it's unclear just how effective the combo is at preventing pregnancy above and beyond simple condom use.
paganslave
10-22-02, 14:56
RN,
The answer is as you expect. No condom, no problem. The ball falls clearly into the guys court. STIs are very much on the rise in Central Asia. I was last in Uzbekistan in 2001 and heard that the HIV rate is actually being suppressed by the government.
Chris,
"Cmon guys, just because we pay them for their bodies, don't be rude and put something noxious in their mouths."
That was so sweet! :) I have to admit, being an Aussie (where we certainly don't rely on a man to supply the condom), I have nobody to blame but myself for the spermicide experience! I realised I'd left my supplies in the car just as I was going into a booking, and I accepted an offer of an emergency condom from a new girl. I should have known better...new girls always seem to carry those darn things! LOL
Joe,
"...you're saying that from a sex worker perspective, you absolutely prefer the unlubed kinds, right?"
Personally, yes. I can't stand the taste of pre-lubricated condoms! (Unless it's flavoured lube on flavoured condoms, of course!) And really, as far as the 'sex worker perspective' goes, lubricating condoms is completely redundant. There is not enough lube on them to actually decrease the risk of breakages, so you need to add extra lube anyway. I would much prefer to have unlubricated condoms for French, and then I can just add my own lube for the sex. I guess pre-lubricated condoms are a good idea for "normal" people though, who don't necessarily always have a bottle of lube near the bed (or for street based workers). A little bit of lube on the condom would be better than none at all.
re: the Nonoxynol-9 findings...our local SW agency has long recommended that working girls shouldn't use them. It may have been ok for the average person who has sex once a week or so, but when you're having sex 6 or 7 times a day, the side-effects are more than obvious. Complaints range from an increased incidence of thrush, right up to such severe burning that sex is no longer possible for the rest of the shift (depending on the woman's sensitivity to it). I never used them myself...because I figured they would taste bad (and then found out the hard way that I was right! LOL)...but a lot of new girls use them when they start, thinking that it must be the safest thing to do. More experienced workers will usually tell them to go buy some normal ones, because the spermicide will end up making them sore.
i'm very new at this hobby --- in fact only have *three* experiences total...
Each time the girl provided an extremely thin Red condom
that fits snuggly around your base but is loose enough
--- and sheer enough --- that it doesn't even feel like yer wearing one !!
The last time i used condoms --- back in the '70s --- they were so thick and tight that the old "taking a shower in a raincoat" analogy really made sense
But *THESE* are Incredible !!!
Does anyone out there know what BRAND these new ones are ???
jeffjimman
11-09-02, 19:09
What is a dental dam? Something that makes it safe to eat a woman? How does it work? Alternatives? What about just using some ceran wrap from the kitchen?
jeff
after an unprotected sex encounter, do i have to wait for a certain period before i see the doctor, or can a diagnosis be made immediately afterwards? obviously i am not talking about HIV, but the more "regular" stuff like chlamydia or the clap.
thanks for your input.
Lew Archer
11-11-02, 08:12
I would contact a doctor or Public Health Clinic and ask them immediately:
1) You would want baseline results (to make sure you do not have anything now, also, if anything develops, you'd be able to tell it was from this encounter)
2) The doctor/clinic will tell you symptoms to watch for and tell you when to come in for tests. Tests are constantly being updated and improved. Many test results now take minutes or hours to obtain.
Loafer,
Get the base-line test done TODAY.
Lew Archer is absolutely right in all that he has said. Anyone in this circumstance owes it to themselves and others to get a base-line.
Believe it or not, I have my own bloods and bacterial profile done every six months. Admittedly that’s extreme, but then I work in a hospital, know the G.U.M. & Haemo boys and so the tests are free. For a regular monger I would urge a base-line at least every 12 to 18 months…
Regards,
Havanaman
thanks guys.
what i actually wanted to know is: how long does it take for bacteria to become traceable in a test, on the basis of only one single unprotected sex encounter.
admittedly an academic question for regular mongers, but perhaps of some interest to those who have this one-off "accident". if there is a possibility of getting tested too early, it might create a wrong feeling of comfort in case the test result was negative.
Lew Archer
11-18-02, 00:02
There are many factors to knowing when a virus or bacteria is first traceable in the bloodstream (assuming the person is totally "clear" of anything prior to being exposed):
1) The virus/bacteria one is trying to detect (how fast does it replicate to the point when it is detectable?). There is a general range of time for each virus/bacteria if one searched the texts. The time is listed as a range because there are other factors such as. . .
2) The body's immune response to foreign invaders . . . Many viruses/bacteria are not detected directly but as an apect of noticing antibodies and/or the immune response to that bacteria.
Also, such things as the 3) Type of test being used and the turnaround time for such a test. A test maybe able to detect a type of bacteria within 24 hours for instance, but may cost 10x the cost of a test your physician may use that takes 3 days for instance.
To cut this long and complicated post short, listen to Havanaman and get tested NOW. Anything which you fear you may have is detectable by now. You can tell the physician when the suspected infection occurred (date of the sexual contact), and the physician can tell you whether a repeat test will be necessary. For your peace of mind, you may want to take repeat tests in 6 months anyway.
Lew Archer’s explanations are correct. Nicely done. I would totally endorse his 6 month re-test recommendation.
Loafer, as you can see from Lew’s post, it's hard to give you a definitive time line, however work on 7 – 10 days for bacterial / fungal infections. Genitourinary viral infections take a lot longer to establish, and will depend on class of virus. If you’re thinking the of the worst-case scenario: don’t! As simplistic as it may sound: “think healthy”, “get and stay in shape” (if you need to…) and if you don’t already, start taking multi-vits-mineral supplements daily. Our general health-status helps to not only keep us “healthy” (sorry!), but also fight infections (viral, bacterial and fungal).
Hey, I know how to sell being healthy! Listen to this: if you are at your peak of health for your age: your erections will be harder, and they will last longer. Your stamina will also last longer and you will ejaculate volumes! Need any more incentive?
Regards,
Havanaman
buddybingo
12-18-02, 18:35
A few quick questions for any medical professionals who may be reading the board:
How long before a person who has been exposed to gonorrhea is contagous to others?
What would be a more effective means of transmitting gonorrhea: having one's face spit upon by an infected person? Unprotected oral sex on a male? Open mouth kissing an infected person? or Placing an unprotected finger in an infected vagina?
I understand that these may be difficult questions to answer and that science may not be exact but I'm curious about the relative likliehoods of each and am trying to settle a bet/convince some one that the disease is not something to be toyed with and that treatment is absolutely necessary.
Thanks.
I will leave the transmission methods, etc, to the medical professionals, but I do want to say something about just how "absolutely necessary" treatment really is.
Women rarely develop symptoms of Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia. That means that unless the women you sleep with are regularly tested, they could have the disease for months...even years...before they find out. During that time, Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia can cause PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease), which can be very dangerous. PID is not only extremely painful, but it could also kill her. If the infection itself doesn't kill her, PID can leave her with internal scarring which could lead to either a) infertility, meaning she may never have children, or b) ectopic pregnancies, which if not caught in time could kill her. If the woman was pregnant when infected, or gets pregnant before she finds out she has it, the effects of gonorrhoea can be devastating for the baby.
Men often consider Gonorrhoea a "minor" infection. And a lot of the time for MEN...it is. But as you can see, the effects are not so minor for the women that an infected man sleeps with. For their PARTNER'S sake, men should always take Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia very seriously. Please assure your friend that an STI that can cause the DEATH of one of his female partners, is definitely not something to be "toyed with".
buddybingo
12-21-02, 14:43
Thanks for the info, RN. I'm trying to convince a "friend" that her actions, no matter what she does, can be harmful and she needs to checked out and treated. She's sure that some practices are considerably less harmful to engage in than others. That may be true but why not just get the treatment and move on. She's convinced that if she doesn't have "sex" (I don't always know what people mean when they use that term...) she won't pass it on and can still apply her trade without fear of infecting others. That's reason for the transmission questions. If anyne else can provide some additional insight, I'd appreciate it.
Too many unfeeling assholes out there caring more for their own pleasure and safety, not giving a damn about the service girls' wellbeing.
There are those who will say that men don't have to care, but I for one do. If we aren't atleast showing them a basic form of human sympathy and kindness, we could put them all out of action. We don't want that now do we?
STDs (from someone who's been there, bought the T-shirt)
My impression - and my personal experience - is that you mainly get these things through intercourse.
1) Gonorrhoea has a quick onset (1 or 2 days). Acute symptoms, easy to (self)-diagnose, whitish discharge, burning sensation when pissing. If caught in South-East Asia, the strain may be resistant to most drugs, so cefixime is the oral drug to take (400 mg once, twice at the most).
2) Chlamydia has a delayed onset (days, typically one week). Classical treatment is with tetracycline (e.g. Vibramycine) and should last at least 10 days. Symptoms are subdued. No discharge, only itching or slight pain when pissing.
Problem: gonorrhoea is can be transmitted together with chlamydia but Cefixime and tetracyclines should not be taken simultaneously because they reduce one another's effectiveness.
Solution (for short stays): treat gonorrhoea immediately you think you've got it, as under 1 above. On last day of stay(day of the last fuck), swallow 400mg cefixime even if there are no symptoms. This closes the gonorrhoea account, so to speak. When home, wait for two days for the cefixime to get washed out, then go 10 days on tetracycline to take care of any Chlamydia.
This leaves out syphilis, which I haven't experienced yet, thank heavens for that. From what I've gathered, the tetracycline may do more harm than good here because it can mask the dermatological tell-tale signs of syphilis, yet might not be sufficient to eradicate it. What can be done is to get oneself tested for syphilis whenever one does an aids test.
Herpes? This one is supposed to be ubiquitous. Indeed, I was diagnosed with herpes antibodies in my blood years ago, so I had at least one fuck with a herpes carrier in my life. Never had any symptom, though. Probably highly variable from person to person.
Buddybingo,
I'm sorry...I presumed your "friend" was a man. Is she a working girl, or are you talking about some other sort of trade where fluids may be transmitted?
If she is a working girl, I have to admit that the risks of her infecting someone else if she's not doing sex, are extremely slim. Condoms are excellent protection against gonorrhoea.
(I should say though that lots of "massage only" girls rub their genitals against the man's genitals during a body-to-body massage, and that could prove almost as risky as intercourse).
If she has gonorrhoea, it would be pretty safe for her to give BJs and have sex using a condom (providing the condom doesn't break of course), BUT she could infect her clients with gonorrhoea of the throat if they go down on her. Likewise, if SHE had gonorrhoea of the throat, she could infect clients if she was giving them BBBJs. I'm not sure about risks associated with kissing, etc, in the case of gonorrhoea of the throat, but if the infection is "down below" there shouldn't be any real risk in activities that don't involve genitals touching. Massage, hand relief, and even the clients fingering her would be safe...although he should probably watch what he does with his fingers afterwards!
Still, like I said in my last post, gonorrhoea and chlamydia can be very, very dangerous for women. She needs to realise that if she has it, she simply MUST get treatment for her own sake. It's as simple as a ten day course of antibiotics. And here's something else for her to think about...
Most married men do not tell their wives that they are visiting sex workers, so wives have no reason to ever have an STI test done. What that means is that if a working girl gives gonorrhoea or chlamydia to a client, he could give it to his wife and she probably won't find out she has it until it's too late. By that time the damage may already be done. I don't know about your "friend", but *I* certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for doing that to another woman. (Oh...and don't forget all the other WORKING GIRLS that client may infect as well!!) For anyone...working girl or not...to know that they have an infection and do nothing about it, is extremely irresponsible and in my opinion, outright selfish.
Breast Kissing Risks???
New subject for forum?
I love to do this as a prelude, but...
1. Is anything generally transferable from the nipple?
2. If someone else did same before, how long do salivary germs stay active on a *dry* surface like the nipple and breast?
I have heard of HIV being present in mothers milk and you can get milk from non-nursing women, but usually only a little. I would think this is almost a 100% safe activity provided you are not injesting milk and even then would be 99.999 safe. Go for it.
Now a body-to-body massage sounds exciting right about now.
;-)
I have a question for anybody that has real knowledge and not just amateur hour bullshit so this goes to the true health professionals, no offense evryone else, OK?
I am a practicing male **** and love every minute of it, especially since I sufferred a massive heart attack last year and my cardiologist gives me even odds of making it 2 years, probably less so I have to admit that I have become far less discriminating when it comes to strange pussy in terms of safe sex. Now I always have and always will wear a condom for the main event or anal, but I don't like raincoats during BJ's so I almost always get BBBJ's. In fact, if the girl won't provide it, I take a pass on her.
I also love 69 and ferociously eat pussy unprotected as well.
Furthermore, I like to finger and sometimes even lick girls assholes as part of the whole session. I have even engaged in gangbangs with several guys doing one girl consenually.
Never said I was a nice man, just an old ****, I admit.
Now my wife of 25 years and I have been having a pretty bad rough patch over the last couple of years which hasn't exactly done much to slow my mongering down I can tell you, but on my side, I was absolutely faithful to her for 20 years. Yeah I know, you can't be a little bit pregnant, so sue me!
Anyway, a few weeks ago, she informs me that she went to her doctor because she was feeling run down. As part of the tests they ran on her, they tested her for STD's. ( Turns out she's anemic and they're treating it with iron, etc. ) Well, guess what?
She, very pissed off I might add, informs me that the tests showed she has HPV Human Papillary Virus ( or something close to that, I forget exactly what the P stands for ). Anyway, she tells me that it's a virus and once you got it, you got it, period. No cure. From what I gather it's sort of like warts.
Now of course her question for me, and she looks me dead in the eye and tells me Don't Lie! where did she get it? Right, like I'm going to deviate from my normal self and tell the truth? No F'ing way! Now, she told me that the doctor asked if her partner, me, had ever had an STD. Well, she knew that years ago when I was 19, I had gonnorhea so I reminded her of that and even mentioned that I had it twice that year. The doctor did say that it was possible for it to have lingered in my system and manifest itself years later. Naturally, I jumped on that and mentioned that perhaps my heart attack weakened state or somehow with all the needles and people puncturing me had somehow infected me. She bought it well enough to get me off the hook, for now. I mean, let's be honest here, I sat there and it occurred to me that there was no real value in 'fessing up at this point because if I did, I was a dead man, possibly literally and at least figuratively with a strong liklihood of a kick my ass outa the house and divorce pronto happening which, despite my prediliction for pussy, I don't want so I lied...again!
So, my question is...can anybody shed light on my situation? Did I in all liklihood infect her? How? Can it be treated or cured? Is it likely to damage her further? Etc etc. I really will appreciate sold information.
Now if I did infect her then it should serve as a warning to all my good mongering friends and allies out there that there is a real risk and sometimes you get the bear and sometimes it gets you.
Ok, as a "professional", let me say this.
There can be NO way of knowing where she caught it from until you get tested. If you test as clean, either you didn't give it to her, or you are just the luckiest fuck alive.
Your best bet is to march right on down arm in arm with your wife, and get yourself tested, and tested again later if it doesn't show positive. Either you infected her, or she could have infected you. Test yourself.
Professionalism aside, chances are good that she knows or atleast suspects you've been doing something, although she might just be throwing suspicion in all directions trying to find out how she got it.
By lying to her now, you risk it coming down even harder later on, especially if some "health professionals" back you into a corner and press you for details of exactly how many people you've slept with.
Coming clean with her will ease her confusion, help her to get on with things, and will let her know that atleast sometimes you can be honest with her.
If you can't tell her the truth, don't bother standing by her, she needs honest and supportive people right now.
Chris,
Thanks for this response. Can you tell me anything about HPV in detail?
Let me say this to you...I have little doubt that I probably gave it to her. I am going to my doctor to be tested tomorrow. Be that as it may, there is no way to prove one way or another who gave it to who and from what I understand, since there is no cure per se, then fessing up would serve no purpose as I see it. I am a lying sack of shit and always have been in business and other areas. I haven't had to ie about faithfulness or lack thereof until very recently. I really don't want my marriage to end and I am 100% certain that it would should I confess to her my hoby activities. She already gets all the property and assets in the event we divorce so money is not a motive for not wanting to tell her. I just see no point in telling her the truth when it won't change anything and will only heap more misery on top, but I do understand and even appreciate your viewpoint. 20/20 hindsight, there's lots of things I would do differently in my life, but it's too late now.
Frankly, I have no intention of telling her I am being tested nor the outcome be it positive or negative unless it shows some other disease and then I would tell her I had been tested and wanted her to know about the other disease.
Trashman -
I have no significant experience with HPV, so cannot tell you anything about it that you couldn't read yourself elsewhere.
I'm glad you're getting tested, but honesty really is best. The choice ultimately is up to you, but I find it best to be honest.
Positive results, I trust, had better make you rethink your safe sex practices in all areas. Condoms will become your best friend, and will keep the girls happier too.
Trashman,
Anything you ever wanted to know about HPV... http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/3766/links.html
You will never really know who gave it to who...she may have had it since before you were married, or you may have, or you may have caught it recently from one of the other women you've slept with. HPV is extremely common in our community...many, many people are positive, but don't know. It's also very easily transmitted, because it's one of those infections that condoms don't necessarily protect you from (although condom use would certainly decrease the risk).
There are over 60 types of HPV...some cause visible warts and some don't. I am presuming she doesn't have visible warts, or you probably would have mentioned her undergoing treatment by burning or freezing them off. A few types don't cause visible warts, but are strongly linked to cervical cancer. Your wife will need to have Pap smears much more regularly than she used to, as her chances of dysplasia will be greatly increased. If she smokes as well, her chances of developing cancer are even higher.
I agree with everything ChrisC30 has said. I have to admit, it amazes me that a married man can sleep with countless women as well as his wife...and perform unprotected acts with all of them... and not even think to have an STI test in 5 whole years. I just hope other men learn from your experience and take heed of your warning.
(And yes, I am a fully trained, bona fide sexual health educator...not just the board's resident hooker. :))
PS...HPV is not necessarily a life-long infection. It CAN cure itself after a period of time, but that depends on how fit and healthy you are, how old you are, whether or not you smoke, etc. It's possible for a healthy immune system to eventually fight it off (although, that's not always the case).
Chris and RN,
Thank you both for taking the time to answer and for caring, I appreciate it.
To set the record straight, I have never had intercourse with any woman without wearing a condom except for my wife.
I have had oral performed on me both with and without condoms and I have performed oral sex on other women with no protection at all.
Additionally, I have touched and penetrated women with my fingers both vaginally and anally without any protection.
I specifically brought this up and was pretty open about it all in this forum as a warning to other men.
I only hope that I didn't make my wife ill although in my heart of hearts I feel that I probably did and feel very badly about that.
I will tell her of the test results either way. It was good to hear that perhaps her system can fight it off with time.
Thanks again
Well I went to the doctor today as I said I would and was tested right then and there for HPV, clap, and chlamydia and the results were negative. He said that he saw absolutely no sign of any kind either gross or microscopic of any infection of any kind. However, they are doing cultures just to be sure and drew blood to run a full battery of STD tests including HIV, Aids, Syphillis etc, the results of which will be available Friday. I will let you guys know.
Jst though you would appreciate the feedback
Trashman,
I really respect your decision to share what you're going through with the board. I know there are probably many men here who have been infected/exposed to STIs in some way, but feel too uncomfortable to talk about it. I think that probably gives some people a false sense of security... they read all these stories about men having sex with countless hookers, yet none of them ever seem to catch anything. People rarely seem to give too much thought to their wives' health, either.
Even if your test results all turn out negative (which I sincerely hope they do), your honesty here may just save someone else having to go through what you are experiencing. I hope this honesty extends to your marriage, and that you and your wife can get through this thing together. Best of luck, babe. :)
Trashman-
maybe a mutual confessional might be in order.
I guess you know she won't have got it from a toilet seat!
Seriously, how do you handle the situation now?
You did not infect her, she has not infected you, so it's a recent thing on her part.
This seems to be something of a 'nightmare scenario'.
I hope that you guys can sort it out.
Not necessarily. Either of them could have been infected years ago (Trashman mentioned he had gonorrhoea when he was younger...he could have picked up HPV at the same time), and Trashman's immune system may have been able to fight it off since then...her's may not have. Or it may have been dormant until now. Plus, he said in his first post that his wife "looked him in the eye and asked how she got it". Could have been a cover I guess, but I'm not sure that I would have confronted my husband with a question like that if I thought for a minute that it could have been MY fault.
It's impossible to ever really know who infected who. We already know that Trashman was sleeping around...and for all we know, his wife may have been as well. Or it may have happened long before they were married. But what's done is done. Blaming each other won't do any good...she's still gonna have HPV. All we can do now is wish them luck.
HPV (Human Papilloma Virus)
As far as I know, the jury is still out as to how HPV is transmitted and what it does to people.
HPV may not be a STD, and may even not be disease-causing ("passenger virus" etc.).
All,
Clearly this subject has struck a chord within many people and I appreciate all the comments.
As I said earlier, I decided to discuss this matter here for the very reason some have mentioned ...to save others from this ordeal possibly and to enlighten the monger comunity of married men especially of the possible consequences.
Personally, I could give a shit if I get sick and die especially now that I am living on borrowed time anyway but the last thing I would want to do is cause anyone else and especially my wife despite any differences we may have any pain and sufferring.
My doctor told me that HPV ( of which there are some 60 varieties ) is extremely common with 20 - 25 million people in the US alone infected. It often is not necessarily transmitted sexually!
Furthermore, there are many studies which indicate that people like me who have recently had their blood exposed multiple times to a wide variety of people can and do become infected non sexually. Additionally, with my severely weakened constitution and taking a lot of medications does dramatically increase chances of either infection or a virus formerly in remmission for years to flare up. And, as was pointed out here by others here, there is even the possibility that my wife may have been harboring the virus herself for years and it flared up in time of physical or mental stress.
I have no issues whatsover in regards to whether she was "fooling around" and caught it outside the marriage sexually either recently or long ago. To me, that's simply not the point. After 25 years of marriage, I am long past getting freaked out by that possibility and if I were to be, it would make me a huge hypocrite since for several years now I have been "fooling around" myself. As I see it, I have no right to be upset if she did fool around. I wouldn't like it and I wouldn't condone it butI sure as hell wouldn't be pissed off about it.
Let me be clear here. Despite everything I have said and done, I love my wife very much and deeply regret having embarked on the journeys I have been on, but as I have read other places, once you go down that path it's kind of a one way street with very little turning back. I have found myself getting deeper and deeper into darker and darker sides of I will reer to as pornographic based sex.
What am I going to do? Nothing. There is no point in hurting my wife and I don't want to be apart from her for any reason, at least not permanently. Therefore, I see no reason for unilateral or mutual confessions. We will move forward together, period.
I thought I would pass on my recent experience. About 1 month ago, I began to get a burning feeling during urination, that got progressively worse over a few days. Fearing the worst, and looking on the internet, I thought for sure that I had picked up either Gonorrhea, or Chlymidia[sp?]. I also had a discharge following urination.
I went to a public health clinic, where you can get tested and treated free of charge, and more importantly, confidentially. The culture, urine sample, and blood work all came back negatively!
I should add that I was put on a 2x per day dose of doxycyclene pending the test results, for 14 days. My condition improved during the regimen of treatment, but was still present, though at a much reduced level, so I was still concerned.
I then went to a "regular MD". What I had was prostatis, whose symptoms mimic STD's. It clears up with an anti-bacterial antibiotic.
Moral of the story-I was lucky! However, where there is smoke, does not always indicate fire![pun intended].
That you got it at the same time you got the other STD years ago is not only a plausible cover story, it may well be what actually happened.
Thor: headgames seems to be right. I got a dose of clap some time ago, the doctor told me i was cured, I went home to find the same symptoms again, almost the same day: Prostatis: the result of a bad does of the clap. These things work their way up your dick and bite when you least expect it; soemtimes, they have delayed action fuses. Apparently, if you are not careful, they get much worse with age. Moral: get thoroughly checked as there are lots of very nasty bugs to be picked up. No joke I am sure you agree.
Trashman: very interesting and welcome posts. However, a lot can be done with willpower. And sometimes we have to draw a line under things. Sometomes, of course, we have to leave them run their course. Depending on our personal make ups, there is a very dark side to this hobby of ours.
Skinless, you might be right, but the only other time I had anything[that I know of] was some 30 years ago when I got the clap[gonorrhea], in college. Of course that was during the time of "free love". I guess I really must have paid a price, with the delayed fuse. lol
I'm glad you're back to posting on the LOS boards. I want to try to get off the beaten track as well in SE Asia. Have you ever explored rural China away from the coast? thor
Originally posted by thor
Skinless, you might be right, but the only other time I had anything[that I know of] was some 30 years ago when I got the clap[gonorrhea], in college.
Right, but you are talking about HPV, a low-level virus that may not show up for years, unlike, say, an infection, which is what gonorrhea is. You could have picked up herpes at the same time and still not know it, unless you actually see a blister and go to the doc and have it checked out.
Or so I have read.
Well, I promised those still tuned in an update when I got test results back from the doctor visit last week specifically to test for any STD's. Guess what? Despite being pretty well convinced that I would have a smorgasbord assortment of nasties, my tests all came back 100% negative. The tested both blood and tissue samples for HPV, HIV, Aids, Syphillis, Gonorhea, Chlamydia, and a few others that I don't remember and they ALL came back negative. I spoke to the doctor myself and asked if he was sure. He told me that as a matter of course when he gets a request like mine to test, he doubles up on the tests and orders them from two different labs to be very sure of the results. This guy is thorough!
So, to all of you who cared to wish me well on this, I thank you. To those of you who expressed some interesting thoughts regarding my wife which included, so what do I do if I test negative? And, one who wondered if she was trying to bluff me into admitting forays beyond the home fires.
Like I said earlier, positive or negative results don't matter in terms of me wanting to stay with her for the long run. We've been through 25 years so far.
If she was bluffing me it didn't work, but she's a pretty tough broad and I doubt she fears anything enough to warrant bluffing me, but I'll admit when I tested negative, I did have a moment to wonder. Then again, if I'm out there hobbying, I have no right to ***** if she has been as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.
Thanks again for alll the interesting input from you folks on this.
Ritchie Nolasco
01-21-03, 22:51
Guys, please mention or list down the pros and cons of a condom. Also please mention what the condom can protect you from and what it cannot protect you from.
Thanks guys.
>Guys, please mention or list down the pros and cons of a condom. Also >please mention what the condom can protect you from and what it cannot >protect you from.
If you're going for FS then you have to use a condom - no ifs, ands, or cons. Latex condoms always say the same thing: "if worn properly, helps protect against HIV and other STDs although nothing will protect you 100%." I'm assuming they mean every STD because I've never heard of any exceptions.
I was told - I think it was in this forum - that you should only buy condoms that state on the box that they help protect against HIV and other STDs. But this is the thing - established brands like Trojan and Durex will specifically state that their brand will help protect against HIV and other STDs. But lesser brands will often only say that latex condoms have been proven to help protect against HIV and other STDs - without stating that their own brand has been specifically proven to do so. I don't know if this makes a difference but I don't like to take the chance. They all cost about the same anyway.
Lew Archer
01-23-03, 01:06
Okay, I'll bite and assume that this is a serious request:
The Pros of wearing a Condom:
- Provides Pregnancy Protection (about 95+% if used properly)
- Provides Protection from STDs (barrier from fluids/viruses)
- May help against Premature Ejaculation (Lessens Sensation)
The Cons of wearing a Condom:
- Lessens sensation (does not feel natural)
- Some people allergic to latex condoms
- May inhibit erection (lessened sensation)
- Do not have the "joy" of raw sex
- Condom can break causing pregnancy or increased risk of contracting disease
- Can ruin the mood or "spontaneity" of sex, stopping during foreplay to put the condom on
For additional information, speak to your physician or look at the insert that comes with every package of condoms.
Hey check out the Rio section of the forum, a guy just posted saying he got genital herpes despite wearing condom, though very likely the girl was having an outbreak.
Hello and welcome to the Gerry Springer and Jphn Skinless show. Here is something from the Rip board.
.................................
http://www.un.org.kh/unaids/faq.html
Interesting thread. Zoomzoom, given her age and her social position and that she has genital herpes, she might be HIV+ as well. What Zoomzoom does will hardly change the overall odds for all of us. One major poster on the Thai boards says he got two separate doses of the clap during his recent TOD there. And that was being careful. The STI rates both among these working women and their clients (us) are much higher than we would imagine by reading of each other's conquests here. We are a very high risk group and the "Safe" Sex and Aids section should be much more active than they are.
Another point: someone posted here about ID and health cards. Is that a joke? They can get as many fake ones of those as they wish. They are fucking us for money and our money spawns many spin of industries, one of which is fake IDs and medical certs. Those women are mostly totally ignorant of safe sex practices (they are largely uneducated and they do include a lot of coke/crack heads)
................................
Has someone you know and love given you herpes, Aids or just plain old clap recently? Want to ***** about it? You know any good joints where HIV+ hos are to be found? Where can they best be avoided? What is the most ridiculous excuse you have heard ? (the Rio one is: dem ain't genital herpes sores, dem is only teenage pimples on my pussy).
To start it off: I was bb anal fucking a cheap leady here in Tokyo and cumming in her mouth and all over her face. I didn't catch anything but I did later, an awesome dose of the clap in Thailand. One of the reasons for that was all the misinformation ("no risk") on the net.
Does anyone know the deal on getting an uncovered BJ? what are the risks to the man? what can I get ? how safe or unsafe is it anyway?
thanks in advance?
Test Kits and Bare Back sex:
I would like to compare the safety (as far as HIV and herpes-2
are concerned) of covered sex without testing versus uncovered
sex with testing, in view of the newly available test kits for
HIV-1/2 and herpes-2. OraQuick test kit for HIV takes 20 minutes,
and PocKit for Herpes takes 10 minutes. Both are FDA-approved,
both easy to use, and both require only finger prick. Neither
kit is over the counter in the US, but OraQuick is legally
available over the counter in other countries for about $20, and
I suspect that PocKit is, too.
Here are the two scenarios that I am comparing. You take a girl
to your place, then
1. have covered sex with her, without testing.
OR
2. test her first (as you had told her you would), then have
uncovered sex with her if the test is negative, otherwise send
her on her way (as you had told her you would).
First, let's consider the accuracy of the tests. Both test kits
are based on antibodies, not viruses. Therefore, they will be
useless during the initial incubation period (about 3 months for
HIV). Other than that, OraQuick will return a negative when she
is infected only once in 250 times, while PocKit will return
a negative when she is infected only once in 12 times.
If you feel that this is not good enough to give scenario 2
an edge over scenario 1, please take into consideration the
following factors:
1. Self selection: A girl who knows or suspects she has an STD
is unlikely to go with you in the first place knowing that you
will test her for that STD.
2. Side benefits: If you say you will test for "HIV and other
STDs" when you negotiate with the girl, you may get the benefit
of self selection with regard to other STDs that the girl knows
or suspects she has.
3. Other protections: A lot of people who have protected sex
still do DFK, BBBJ, and/or DATY. Under scenario 2, these
activities would be somewhat safer than under scenario 1.
4. Correlation: Having one of the two viruses increases the
likelihood of having the other, so the chances that an infected
girl will fail at least one of the two tests are better than what
the above numbers may suggest.
A few miscellaneous points:
1. Other than the side benefits above, I am not addressing the
bacterial infections, serious as they may be; nor HPV, which has
a lot of unknowns; nor hepatitis A/B, for which there are vaccines;
nor herpes-1, which is mostly the all-too-common oral version.
The comparison that I am proposing relates to HIV-1/2 and herpes-2
only.
2. Although not relevant to safety, but important in practical,
moral, and emotional terms, OraQuick will almost never return
a positive for an uninfected person, while PocKit will return
a positive for an uninfected person about once in twelve times.
3. I assume that you know that you are negative for both viruses,
so whether you too get tested in front of her is a practical (and
fairness) question, with a subtle angle of self selection. If you
do a lot of different girls, you can end up with too many holes
in your finger tip by the end of your trip :) .
4. Although not part of the FDA approval, OraQuick can be used
with oral secretions instead of a blood drop. PocKit does not
seem to have that option.
Any answers? comments? corrections? information? experiences?
Sabio,
Thanks for the comprehensive post but I am a little slow. IF a guy is out there getting BBBJ what can he get ? do you reccomend it ?
CBJ is usually such a bummer.
Thanks in advance,
Denringer
AddictedToWomen
03-01-03, 09:08
Originally posted by denringer
CBJ is usually such a bummer.
Usually being the operative word though. Doesn't have to be. My best *ever* was covered. And I'd swear the girl had no idea just how good she was. Lost contact with her though. Damn, damn, damn... :-(
PurpleNGold
03-01-03, 18:10
Originally posted by sabio
Test Kits and Bare Back sex:
I would like to compare the safety (as far as HIV and herpes-2
are concerned) of covered sex without testing versus uncovered
sex with testing, in view of the newly available test kits for
HIV-1/2 and herpes-2. OraQuick test kit for HIV takes 20 minutes,
and PocKit for Herpes takes 10 minutes. Both are FDA-approved,
both easy to use, and both require only finger prick. Neither
kit is over the counter in the US, but OraQuick is legally
available over the counter in other countries for about $20, and
I suspect that PocKit is, too.
Here are the two scenarios that I am comparing. You take a girl
to your place, then
1. have covered sex with her, without testing.
OR
2. test her first (as you had told her you would), then have
uncovered sex with her if the test is negative, otherwise send
her on her way (as you had told her you would).
(SNIP)
Any answers? comments? corrections? information? experiences?
I'd like to point out that you are only considering STD's that the girl may have. What about you? How often do you test yourself? Are you possibly the cause of the girl's becoming infected? I think that both of your scenarios show a disregard for the girl's safety. Come on, she's a human being as well, regardless of her line of work.
Also, unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. Do you really want to have a child with a working pro? Don't be too sure that she would get an abortion.
denringer and Addicted:
Thank you for your posts.
For a BBBJ, the test kits that I discussed will have no bearing on the risk for bacterial infection, except through the side benefits
point that I mentioned in my post. The main benefit is by avoiding herpes-2 (less commonly found in the mouth than herpes-1).
To my knowledge, HIV infections through BBBJ are unheared of.
One point about recommendations. I cannot, in good conscience, recommend one activity or the other to someone else. The risk-reward
tradeoffs are different for different people.
purplengold
You may have missed that in my previous post, I said
"I assume that you know that you are negative for both viruses, so whether you too get tested in front of her is a practical (and fairness)
question"
By the way, I am not advocating either scenario. I am just soliciting opinions (one of which is yours). As for pregnancy, it is
certainly a consideration, but I wanted to maintain separation of concerns here. People can then make an informed decision about
what risks they are willing to take.
PurpleNGold
03-02-03, 05:41
Sabio,
My bad, missing that.
As for my opinion, I think I would be too afraid of the unprotected sex. There is that incubation period during which these tests won't come up positive, but during which, I could still catch something. Remember, these girls are probably going through a lot of guys within that time. Who knows what nasty little bug the last customer deposited for me to withdraw.
And, regardless, I just can't seperate that pregnancy concern.
Just my $.02
Hysteromania
03-02-03, 15:31
I don't know, not only is the testing a mood killer because of the anxiety buildup, I can not imagine many girls who are barfined would want to stay and test thinking you were wacko or something. And people complained that having to stop foreplay to put on a condom kills the mood! I would simply say cover your willy and don't be silly. I would rather use the test kit on a girlfriend or someone with whom I am planning on spending several years with and of course, on myself as well. You really have to know the other person more than just intimately to know for sure. The test kits is like playing Russian roulette by opening the gun quickly to see if there are bullets or not. What you do not see could be the other bullets in the chamber. For hedging my risks, I would still go the condom route as the percentages of higher for safety.
As for the BBBJ, it is really only the last 2 minutes that feel the best and only if you can get to cum in her mouth. I find it also takes longer to completion if starting out BBBJ so I prefer to do the deed, withdraw and then finish BBBJ and clean immediately afterwards.
If you've had a vasectomy, like me, then pregnancy is not a concern. But otherwise, I agree with you. Before getting cut, I always abhorred the thought that I might make a baby and that child would be growing up somewhere in the world without knowing its daddy.
Points well taken. Let me mention a few clarifications.
1. I would like to quantify the risks (put numbers on them, even if they were only ballpark numbers) so that the comparison is objective. We are comparing scenarios that carry risks, and if we discuss the downside of either scenario without evaluating the
probability of that downside, either scenario will look awful. For instance, using a condom correctly does not prevent pregnancy, it just reduces the probability of
pregnancy by 10 to 20 times. By the way, if the same numbers hold for infection (this is a BIG if, I do not have data), the numbers for OraQuick and even PocKit start
looking pretty good.
2. I do not wish the discussion to look like we are advocating uncovered sex. There is
overwhelming data establishing that, other things being equal, covered sex is far safer than uncovered sex. You can view the discussion as comparing prescreening with fast test kits versus not doing so. What practice you do after screening is up to you.
3. If you focus on an infection, say HIV, the number we are after is the probability of getting infected in a single encounter. I would say that if this number is one in a million, the vast majority will consider it acceptable. If it is one in ten, the vast majority will consider it unacceptable. This number is affected by the percentage of providers that are infected, the probability of getting infected from a single covered/
uncovered encounter with an infected girl, and the probability that an infected girl will pass your prescreening (if you do the test). If the resulting probability under
a given scenario is within YOUR acceptable range, you are in business.
It will be very helpful if people can post statistics for different covered and uncovered sex activities (hooky said he might do that), as well as statistics of infection among providers in different cities. It would also be great if those who
have first-hand experience with the test kits would share their experiences with us.
PurpleNGold
03-04-03, 00:40
Originally posted by sabio
3. If you focus on an infection, say HIV, the number we are after is the probability of getting infected in a single encounter. I would say that if this number is one in a million, the vast majority will consider it acceptable. If it is one in ten, the vast majority will consider it unacceptable. This number is affected by the percentage of providers that are infected, the probability of getting infected from a single covered/
uncovered encounter with an infected girl, and the probability that an infected girl will pass your prescreening (if you do the test). If the resulting probability under
a given scenario is within YOUR acceptable range, you are in business.
This is basic probability (bayes formula). But, you need to have the individual probabilities first.
BTW, I wouldn't be too sure about the vast majority feeling like 1 in a million is a small enough probablility to play it safe. The chances of winning a typical 65 number lottery are something like 60 mil to 1 (maybe even higher). Still, it's not a 'vast' majority that abstains from buying a ticket every week.
purplengold
You are right. The probability is straightforward to compute once you have the components. The one in a million is clearly a guess on my part. My reasoning goes as follows. One in a million per encounter means less than 1% probability of infection after 10,000 lifetime encounters with providers, which I would guess covers the vast majority of hobbyists.
Given that the probability of eventually getting cancer / stroke / heart attack / fatal accident
is much higher than 1%, it is arguable that the 1% increment in risk is justified by the "fun."
Of course, this is just an opinion. Whether it is one in a million or one in a billion, what matters is that it is not zero, and the question becomes: does scenario X achieve that risk.
hooky wrote (in another section):
>hey sabio
>
>still looking for those numbers. it was something i heard on public radio
>i think about 6 months ago. no luck so far finding it on the net.
>obviously any numbers like those are going to be someone's ballpark
>guesstimates, still they were very interesting for me to hear. included
>were giving and receiving oral and all other types of sex for both
>women and men.
>
>hooky
Sabio,
I have read stats on HIV transmission, but I can't seem to find what I'm looking for on the net. I can assure you the chances are much greater than one in a million - if the person you are having sex with is positive, the odds for vaginal sex are around one in 1000-10,000 depending on whether you're male or female. But stats will usually only describe what would happen in a 'control group' anyway - for example, where a healthy male has one session of unprotected sex with an infected female. Things don't work like that in real life though.
What if she has her last client's semen inside her, and you have a cut on your penis? What if she wipes you down with alcohol swabs and it causes an irritation? What if she's been using Nonoxynol-9 and has an irritation of her own? What if you or her have another existing STD (which greatly increases your chances of transmission)? What if you have unprotected sex a second time, and your penis has already been rubbed raw the first time?
I think you would be taking a huge risk relying on a DIY testing kit. HIV has a window period of up to 6 months - she may test negative today, but test positive next week. You would also be putting the sex worker's health at risk for the same reason - you could test negative in front of her, but actually have been infected the month before. The only way of being sure that someone doesn't have HIV, is to have them tested and then wait six months - ensuring that she does not have any sort of sexual contact in that time.
As for the HIV tests serving the secondary purpose of scaring girls off if they have other STDs - I do not have any diseases at all, but I would not do your test if you asked me to. It's an invasion of my privacy, it's unecessary and ineffective, and to top it all off - it would leave me with a cut on my finger, which would put me at greater risk of contracting HIV!
PS. Here's a good site for HIV info...
http://www.avert.org/trans.htm
RN:
Many thanks for your well-informed post. Please understand that I have not reached
a conclusion yet. It would be great if we continued the discussion at the intelligent
level of your post, so that meaningful conclusions can be reached. I will address here
some of the points you raised
>I can assure you the chances are much greater than one in a million
I agree with you. Just to clarify, the one in a million number that I mentioned in my
previous post is only a target, only after either the covering or testing scenario is
adopted, and only describes the probability of getting infected in one encounter in
general, not one encounter with a known HIV+ person.
>if the person you are having sex with is positive, the odds for vaginal sex are around
>one in 1000-10,000 depending on whether you're male or female.
This is consistent with the numbers I could find so far.
>What if she has her last client's semen inside her, and you have a cut on your penis?
>What if she wipes you down with alcohol swabs and it causes an irritation? What if
>she's been using Nonoxynol-9 and has an irritation of her own? What if you or her have
>another existing STD (which greatly increases your chances of transmission)? What if
>you have unprotected sex a second time, and your penis has already been rubbed raw the
>first time?
Indeed, a lot of factors affect the probability of transmission. The final numbers are
meant to incorporate the different factors according to their likelihood. If you know
a risk factor is present (say you have another STD), your numbers will be worse. If you
know a risk factor is absent (say you do not have another STD), your numbers will be
better. By the way, circumcision, among all things, is reported to reduce the
probability of female-to-male transmission significantly.
>I think you would be taking a huge risk relying on a DIY testing kit. HIV has
>a window period of up to 6 months - she may test negative today, but test positive
>next week.
This is the most important point in my opinion. Indeed, without it, the 250-to-one
performance of OraQuick would be decisive. The question is what is the percentage of
infected providers that are in the so-called seronegative window: have the virus but
still not enough antibodies. If this is 5%, then we are comparing having covered sex
with 20 infected providers, versus having uncovered sex with one infected provider.
By the way, I looked into the seronegative window a bit. According to what I read, the
time it takes antibodies to develop to a detectable level is less than one month for
most people, and it is rare to take more than three months. This does not contradict
that for some it may take 6 months. What matters is the PROBABILITY that this is the
case, since this is what will affect the ultimate probability. If someone has reliable
data on this, please post them, and do correct me if I am wrong.
>You would also be putting the sex worker's health at risk for the same reason - you
>could test negative in front of her, but actually have been infected the month before.
Not at all. As I said in my original post, I assume the hobbyist knows that he is not
infected (to moral certainty, say through DNA testing).
>As for the HIV tests serving the secondary purpose of scaring girls off if they have
>other STDs - I do not have any diseases at all, but I would not do your test if you
>asked me to. It's an invasion of my privacy,
I can perfectly understand your position. This is a sensitive point, so please bear
with me here. I will take No for an answer. I plan to explain the health purpose of this
exercise to the provider. I may even offer to compensate her for her trouble. Given
that, I feel it is OK to ask, pretty much like it is OK to ask for specific services.
If an unifected provider refuses as a matter of principle, I will just miss out on her
and try someone else. The bottom line is that, if I am convinced of the health benefit
(and I am not convinced yet), I will simply do it.
>it's unnecessary and ineffective,
Please allow me to argue that this is yet to be determined.
>and to top it all off - it would leave me with a cut on my finger, which would put me
>at greater risk of contracting HIV!
Point well taken. The finger prick is necessary for PocKit, but OraQuick can be used
with oral secretions.
Again, thank you RN for starting an intelligent discussion.
NIH study says it is one in seven
The US National Institutes of Health conducted a study on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission during vaginal intercourse. The results showed an 85 percent decrease in risk of HIV transmission among consistent condom users versus non-users.
One in seven is nothing to sneeze at when it comes to saving lives, and it does show that condoms are effective as a public health measure. However, I must say that the number is lower than I thought it would be when it comes to comparing the two scenarios
in my previous posts (covered sex versus fast test kits).
Summary found in:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/hiv/01072004.htm (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/hiv/01072004.htm)
Full report found in:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf )
Performance numbers for PocKit
This is the herpes 10-minute home test kit that I am exploring for checking providers
for herpes-2 (even when they don't have outbreaks). The performance looks better than
I initially thought:
False Negatives (infected person testing negative): one in 25
False Positives (uninfected person testing positive): one in 33
Seronegative window (time after infection for test to work): 13 days (median)
Notice that we are comparing these numbers to the condom protection (one in 7 for
HIV per my previous post, presumably even worse for herpes since it can be transmitted
through the skin outside the condom).
Details are found in:
http://www.pockit.com/pockitpro/herpes_prod_pubs.htm (http://www.pockit.com/pockitpro/herpes_prod_pubs.htm)
Although this is PocKit's web site, the numbers come from quoted studies that are
published in the open research literature.
Condoms are 85% effective? I'm willing to bet 99%+ for latex condoms provided they don't break. If used correctly and with a little caution condoms break maybe 1 in 100? So the 85% seems bogus to me and probably covers people who don't know how to use condoms as well as people who SAY they always use them but mean that they usually use them.
Meanwhile, good luck on having the women allow your medical testing. Not too likely . . .
Originally posted by Prokofiev
Condoms are 85% effective? I am willing to bet 99%+
The 85% is not my number. The US Congress commissioned the NIH to determine what
that number is, and NIH had a panel of experts consider a multitude of scientific studies
and concluded that it is 85% (see the links below). This was a surprise for me too, but, with all due respect, I would take a conclusion by the NIH to be more credible than a bet
by you (I really don't mean any offense here, I am just stating a fact).
As for practical issues (acceptance by girls or lack thereof, what to do in case of a positive, etc.), I am not addressing them yet since they would be irrelevant if the
safety of the testing scenario is not up to par. I don't know yet if it is up to par.
This is what I have been trying to gather credible information on.
Let me address the 85% from a public health point of view. Even if it were only 50%, it would make sense for health officials to advocate condoms in strong terms. A person who catches HIV not only does a great harm to him/herself, but also poses a great risk to others, and eventually costs society enormous medical expenses. If the percentage of HIV cases can be cut even by a mere half using a simple, economic, and universally
recognized tool such as condoms, this would be rightfully advocated by any responsible public health entity.
However, for an individual, the 85% is indeed psychologically discouraging in two ways. It makes you feel uneasy even when you use condoms, and it may affect your resolve to use them (knowing that the HIV risk of one bareback encounter is like the risk of seven
covered encounters). Like it or not, it is 85%. I prefer to deal with reality and plan accordingly, rather than ignore the facts and have a false sense of safety.
This is why I am trying to objectively compare the covering and testing scenarios.
Finally, for someone who has as much fun using condoms as not using them, this is a no brainer. Use condoms. If you think testing adds to the safety enough to justify the hassle, use testing on top of it. If not, forget about testing. However, if you do not
have as much fun using condoms, then it makes sense to look into alternatives. If the safety of the alternative is up to par, take it. If it is not, you need to put up with
condoms. Just think of how many posters admitted going bareback in the heat of the moment every now and then. If testing was done (which happens BEFORE the heat of the moment), these very high risk situations would not have arisen in the first place.
Re: condom breakage.
A few months ago, I estimated that I've had sex with over 4000 men. Add the repeat customers, etc and...well, lord knows how many times I've had sex! As I've said on this board before, I only had a condom break ONCE in the time that I was working. (And that guy was particularly large).
The risks of a condom breaking with a sex worker are much lower than with 'regular' girls. (There is actually a study that proved this...Perkins, I think?) You can't help but get good at putting one on, when you're doing it so many times a day! Also sex workers (here at least) use condoms of different sizes to ensure a better fit, and they use lube - which is something that 'regular' couples rarely use.
That NIH study was a study of other studies from around the world. Not only does it include breakage but undoubtedly some lying as well. How can you possibly make sure that the participants always used condoms? Never were IV drug users? Can't. These are usually interview studies where you ask questions but can never be sure of the truth. Couldn't even confirm that condoms had any effect on other STD's. Not enough reliable data. Since HIV transmission is almost completely blood and semen related, how well does latex protect against viral infections passing thru the membrane? Close to 100%. A broken rubber? 0%. Pulling a soft dick out and making a mess? A problem.
Plain old lying? The biggest problem of all . . .
-P
I confess I've also always been curious on the whole condom breakage thing. I've never had one break on me, so maybe guys could pipe up here -- how common is it, really?
Yes, I've had them break at least 5 or 6 times out of perhaps 500. And during critical times of the month . . . but I've always dodged that bullet. But never with a pro where we are both very careful. The problem is that you can lose the slack at the tip , especially with an undersized condom. Then if you thrust too hard and deep, looking for more pressure /tightness you can shread the rubber. You can usually feel it . . . not the actual breakage but a pleasant warm/wet feeling (!) Each time I was thinking, "Man this feels good tonight!" without thinking why that might be so.
Of course a couple of drinks can cloud the mind.
And this has never happened in missionary or woman on top position. Only when I'm entering from the side or some strange angle.
RN: 4000 Huh. Are you bragging or complaining? I don't think I'll ever reach that level (a new woman each day for 11 years . . .) but I'm sure some of these guys have you beat (but NOT if they are 29!). . .
And do you use lube INSIDE the condom as well? Or only outside? I read a tip somewhere that lube inside is very pleasurable. AND IT IS. If the condom is large enough you can slide in and out of it a little and it has a different feeling. But I don't do that often . . . maybe I should.
Zero breakages here. Seldom use lube although sometimes on the inside. BUT you gotta throw 'em out if they've been in the sun/glove compartment/wallet/whatever too long AND I don't buy "off brands." Oh, and also I always bring American condoms when travelling to Third World countries. I am down on my country at the moment but we do lead the world in two things for sure: condoms and toilet paper. That is good since Bush can both suck my dick AND kiss my ass.
Dickhead, waving your flag instead of your dick. Japanese condoms are the worlds best (small is beautiful). And Skinless is the best brand (though I do like to go skinless) Superior technology. We don't have a dickhead brand. Japanese toilet paper is also the best. When I got bj'ed here on the street, the lady used a tissue to wipe me and the condom (Japanese) up. Japanese manners are best. But Thai hos give the best lays.
Also, anyone putitng lube into a tube ain't thiking of safe sex. They are thinking with their dickhead.
Sorry man, you may be right. I should say the US toilet paper and condoms are the best I have found SO FAR in 30 countries NOT including Japan (where I have not been). But in my defense, quality equals value divided by price, a ratio, and may I ask how much toilet paper costs in Japan? And I have heard many complaints about Japanese condoms from others (mainly that they are too small but maybe that is not a problem for you? :)).
Plus lube in a tube is fine if it is water based lube and not petroleum based lube (avoid Vaseline, cooking oil especially directly out of the deep fryer - ouch!, 10W-40, etc). I like it on the inside of the condom when using unlubricated condoms for blow jobs, but now I have mostly switched to flavored condoms for covered blow jobs.
Dickhead: you seem to be well informed for a Dickhead. Toilet paper here is very expensive (maybe we should go like India and use our left hand instead). At the last oil crisis, the price of toilet paper shot up. Japanese people, though afraid of the coming war, still cannot afford to shit themselves as the paper is going up very quickly in price.
There is no joke like an old joke. Yes, Japanese condoms tend to be small but good things do come in small packages. I certianly like to come in small packages for example.
So you go around comparing toilet paper in all the countries you visit. Sounds interesting. If you get a bj, you should get a bj, not a flavored piece of rubber. Plus your lady friend can get diseases from rubbers in the mouth. I prefer skinless.
Effectiveness of condoms
Just to be sure that there is no confusion here, the 85% figure is the effectiveness of
condoms in preventing HIV transmission compared to bareback, not the probability that the condom won't break.
IMHO, assuming that NIH did not take into consideration the obvious factors that one could
think of is amateurish. Also, the fact that they considered the data insufficient to infer the effectiveness numbers for other STDs adds to their credibility. NIH is a research entity that bases its conclusions on hard data and scientific methods, not on anecdotes and wishful thinking.
The bottom line is that each reader can draw their own conclusions. I, and the other posters, are providing information and references that people can look at and evaluate.
A picture is worth a 1000 words
Here is a picture of the OraQuick 20-minute test kit. Some love it :) , some hate it :mad: . If you are just joining us, start with the February 26 post.
http://www.abbottdiagnostics.com/systems_tests/images/oraquick_item.jpg
in my survey group of 3 tries of japanese contoured condoms - 3 of 3 broke. and they ARE too small.
Originally posted by Prokofiev
Condoms are 85% effective? I'm willing to bet 99%+ for latex condoms provided they don't break. If used correctly and with a little caution condoms break maybe 1 in 100? So the 85% seems bogus to me and probably covers people who don't know how to use condoms as well as people who SAY they always use them but mean that they usually use them.
Meanwhile, good luck on having the women allow your medical testing. Not too likely . . .
The NIH report did not say condoms are 85% effective. It said condoms are 85% more effective than not using anything at all. Hence, you're not going to get fucked up 1 out of every 7 times you poke an infected worker. Rather, you're 7 times better off using a condom than you would be had you not used one.
The report stated .9/ 100 person years as the infection rate for people using condoms, and 6.4/100 person years for people having unprotected sex with an infected person. So if you assume 1% of the general population has HIV, then the rate for HIV transmission with a random person would be .9/10000 person years and 6.4/10000 person years. I dont know what the report meant by a person year.
Originally posted by nai
in my survey group of 3 tries of japanese contoured condoms - 3 of 3 broke. and they ARE too small.
think of condoms as spandexes. if you put a small spandex over a huge body, it rips when the huge body moves. if the spandex fits properly, it wont rip.
so of course the japanese condoms are going to break if you have a big dick. Use bigger japanese condoms, i'm pretty sure they have larger ones for those well endowed japanese. Just dont over estimate your size like most guys. You dont want baggy fit condoms.
Monkeyman: iintersting but maybe not quite right. What your figures mean is that .9/1000 you are in the ballpark or bedpark to be hit with a HIV bug. But the the HIV bug is anti social. It hits say only once every 100 times; therefore your 1000 has to be multiplied by 100 (assuming 100 to be right). Now what this actually means is if you are a good boy, if you are not into fist fucking, poppers, jacking up on smack in shooting galleries, you are probably pretty safe. Chlamydia etc are much more social and the 100 would probably have to be replaced by 8 or 9.
Thanks anyway for taking the pressure off Japanese condoms. Okamoto incidentally is the world's biggest condom company. The main thing is to have an unbroken skin and to kep the top covered.
On another topic: am I the only guy on the planet who does not like having my balls chewed? Women seem to think my balls are chewing gum and it always hurts me. Is there something (else) wrong with me?
I've never had a rubber break in 25 years. Had a few come off, but only when I was pulling out after the fact.
Skinless, I agree. I'm not into the nut swallowing or chewing either. Having them licked however, is fun!
Originally posted by skinless
Dickhead: you seem to be well informed for a Dickhead. Toilet paper here is very expensive (maybe we should go like India and use our left hand instead).
The majority of India is Hindu, not Muslim. Those parts use "traditional Hindu cleansing" with leaves and twigs. They do not use their left hand.
I don't like having my balls chewed either. Just suck my dick and stay away from my balls.
Originaly posted by monkeyboi
I dont know what the report meant by a person year.Instead of measuring the risk per encounter, some studies measure the risk per (total number of encounters a typical person in the study has in a year).
Originally posted by skinless
What your figures mean is that .9/1000 you are in the ballpark or bedpark to be hit with a HIV bug.
ETC.
No. They mean to become INFECTED with HIV, not just "hit." Read the report.
Someone who actually used the fast test kits :) . This is abridged from a post on another board:
I read about portable HIV testing, and called Abbott in Thailand and
Vietnam (see below). I was directed to a medical supplier which turned out to be a large drug store and got a box of 100. Put on a drop of blood, drop of reagent, than drop of cleaner and if the + sign turns red its positive.
Just ask if they want a free test most seem happy to have it. I have not run into a positive. If I do, I have already decided that I would take the person for a confirmation test. Confirmation testing is available all over Thailand cost about $20.
Thailand
Abbott Laboratories Limited
9th Floor, Nai Lert Tower
2/4 Wireless Road
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Telephone: 66-2267-9060
Vietnam
Abbott Laboratories, S.A.
48, Truong Son Street
Tan Binh District
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Telephone: 84-8-844-8985
Originally posted by Prokofiev
And do you use lube INSIDE the condom as well? Or only outside? I read a tip somewhere that lube inside is very pleasurable. AND IT IS. If the condom is large enough you can slide in and out of it a little and it has a different feeling. But I don't do that often . . . maybe I should.
Yep...I wrote that on this board some time ago as well. You just put a tiny drop of lube into the tip of the condom before you roll it on - although you have to be careful that you don't go overboard, or the condom will slip off. My clients always said it felt good.
There is a brand of condoms here called "Ansell Extra Pleasure". They have a straight shaft - slightly tighter than regular condoms - and a large 'bulb' shape on the end. (Much more pronounced than the 'flared' condoms, which get gradually larger towards the tip). The baggy bit at the end acts as a foreskin, by rubbing back and forth over the head of the penis during sex. Add a bit of lube inside these condoms, and apparently it's just about as good as the real thing. The tighter shaft makes sure the condom doesn't slip. I don't know about availability overseas, but I'm sure there would be something similar.
And no, I was neither bragging, nor complaining. I was...errr....confessing. LOL
3-minute home test kit for HIV
The Canadian company MedMira received preliminary FDA approval, and is about to receive final approval, for a new easy-to-use HIV-1 test kit called MedMira Reveal that gives results within 3 minutes (compared to OraQuick's 20 minutes). The company's previous fast HIV-1/2 test kit MiraWell has been available in Europe for years.
Reveal is of particular interest to the idea of prescreening providers, not only because it is much faster, but also because it seems to have its eye on the do-it-yourself market. From the web page (http://www.ahdnet.net/products.asp#5) of the US distributor:
"The Reveal test is soon to be the only FDA approved rapid diagnostic test for detection of HIV in serum/plasma that can give results in 3 minutes. With distribution contracts in place, this rapid test kit will be used by hospitals and health care facilities, and will soon be sold to the general public."
Which one of the following would provide the greatest amount of safety along with highest chance of approval from a provider;
1) With the man lying on his back, start with a piece of Saran wrap large enough to cover from the lower abdomen to the top of the knees. Cut a small hole and slide 3/4 of the way down shaft. Apply condom so that there is 1/4 overlap at the base. The woman could then provide service in whatever female superior position she preferred.
2) Heat bathroom up to temperature needed for comfort while completely lathered-up. Couple could then have full body contact while maintaining a soap barrier between them.
Would either or both methods provide complete protection from all types of STI's? If not, please list the ones that might still be a problem and why. Any other techniques or modifications would be appreciated.
TIA ... wrist
spit or stick?
The reference below confirms that OraQuick works with either saliva or finger stick. I contacted the manufacturer to ask about this. Since they applied for FDA approval for finger stick only, they cannot market it in the US for use with saliva.
The following reference explains the background and catalogs different HIV fast test kits. Only OraQuick has FDA approval, and MedMira Reveal is on its way.
http://www.medadvocates.org/diagnostics/cdc/rapidtest.html (http://www.medadvocates.org/diagnostics/cdc/rapidtest.html)
Quite a comprehensive reference, albeit a bit old (the year 2000 is now old :) ).
Prices for PocKit
Here is an e-mail response from a small US distributor of PocKit (the herpes 10-minute test kit). It's about $20 per kit, but I suspect one can get a better price from other outlets.
Thank you for your interest in the POCkit HSV-2 Rapid Test. First of all, you will
have to name a physician, medical professional, medical institution, clinic, or
anywhere with similar for which to address the shipment to.
The tests are sold in towers containing 5 kits. The cost is $97.50 per tower plus
$15 S&H within the continental United States. Please return the number of towers you
will request, your address and country, and we can give you a purchase and shipping
estimate.
Thank you again.
GettingTang
03-22-03, 04:46
I have one quick rather simple questions.
Upon reading numerous posts in this forum, if I were to believe you all, I would come to the conclusion that aids is virtually impossible to catch. My questions is simply this. Then why or how are so many fricken people catching this virus? Now you must remember it is a VIRUS! Viruses, in general, are fair to quite easily passed from one person to another. Why does over half the continent of Africa have aids, why does 32% of Asia have aids, why do males in America under the age of 25 today have a 36% chance of contracting aids in their lifetime? People get real, it's easy to catch! It's a fricken virus, yes you can get it from a BBBJ, male to female sex or from eating out a pussy! Get real, already! Most HIV positive people these days, do not engage in anal sex, do not use IV drugs,
Best estimates place 65-85% of all new HIV cases were contracted from prostitutes, world wide. A west pack tour coming back from Thailand usually has 8% of it's crew test positive for HIV in the coming months.
TANG!
Bullshit.
That's a whole lot of scare tactic stats which contradict information that is simply everywhere, and which you just throw out as if it actually means something. Please cite where your information comes from, as some of your numbers are clearly baloney and don't agree with known and reliable sources.
Half of the continent of Africa does not have HIV/AIDS, for example, (29 million estimated cases, 800 million people -- you do the math) and your numbers on Asia are also ridiculously off (7 million estimated infected, population base of multiple billions.) UNAIDS/WHO say that Cambodia has the highest infection rate on the continent, and that's 2.6%. Sex workers there are the worst, and they're at a 40% infection rate. The rest of Asia is generally far lower in all aspects. Thailand's overall percentage of infected population in 1999 was 1.2%, and things are supposed to have improved since then due to aggressive condom education. It's very well documented that Thailand has had major success in reducing the HIV/AIDS rate since 1993 through aggressive education and condom distribution campaign. Non-brothel sex workers there are infected at vastly lower rates, and most tourists are not using brothels in Thailand.
As to why people catch it, well, people fuck a lot, and plenty of people still don't use condoms, particularly in third world areas, where the cost of condoms makes it virtually impossible. There's obviously a cumulative effect to exposure, in that most of the statistics quoted here regarding transmission look at individual encounters. There's also a big difference between theoretical risk and documented risk.
The CDC says that, yes, AIDS can be transmitted via oral sex, but even in its "definitive" study about this it says it's impossible to rule out that the examples cited came from other sexual practices, and in fact its primary findings were about giving blowjobs, not receiving. Its fact sheet on eating pussy says, "The risk of HIV transmission during cunnilingus is extremely low compared to vaginal and anal sex. However, there have been a few cases of HIV transmission most likely resulting from oral-vaginal sex." Hardly definitive, and hardly something to send anyone into a panic. HIV is not known to be transmitted through saliva, so transmission via oral sex has to be direct contact with a mouth sore or wound. There are NO clearly documented cases of someone getting infected from receiving a blowjob -- if you have evidence otherwise, please point me to it.
Just because something is a virus doesn't mean it's out there infecting you every time the wind blows. AIDS has been described as a "tremendously inefficient disease" in terms of its transmission. Obviously, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be very worried about it, since it can be a death sentence, but that also doesn't mean people should run around screaming that the sky is falling.
Joe-you're right on point, as there is no way that Tang can corroborate his outlandish claims with any sort of factual documentation.
In fact, because his assertions are so off the wall, he is actually performing a disservice to this board, if his intent is to encourage people to practice safe sex, as people will ignore the underlying message due to the high BS quotient. thor
Originally posted by gettingtang
Upon reading numerous posts in this forum, if I were to believe you all, I would come to the conclusion that aids is virtually impossible to catch. My questions is simply this. Then why or how are so many fricken people catching this virus?
The probability for a man to catch HIV from a single covered vaginal encounter with an infected woman is estimated to range from one in several thousand to one in tens of thousands. It is seven times worse if the encounter is bareback, and about ten times worse for a woman. There are billions of people on this planet having sex, and tens of millions of already infected people. That's why "so many" are catching the virus.
Why does over half the continent of Africa have aids, why does 32% of Asia have aids, why do males in America under the age of 25 today have a 36% chance of contracting aids in their lifetime?
I'll be happy to provide references for the numbers that I mentioned. Could you kindly provide references for your numbers so that readers can independently verify the information?
It's a fricken virus, yes you can get it from a BBBJ, male to female sex or from eating out a pussy!
Yes, and you can also get hit by lightning. What matters is the PROBABILITY. That's what determines the risk-reward tradeoff.
Best estimates place 65-85% of all new HIV cases were contracted from prostitutes, world wide. A west pack tour coming back from Thailand usually has 8% of it's crew test positive for HIV in the coming months.
Again, could you please provide the references? Thank you.
Hysteromania
03-27-03, 08:07
I guess the scariest number of all is 1, as probability does not matter if it would directly affect you. Rather than probabilities, we should be exercising more caution. Maybe I am just anal (no, not that way!), but I ask all my girls to shower, not just splash some water on her pubic hairs, before and after- even if we do it again afterwards. I guess this is a custom I picked up in Asia and have not found as common elsewhere.
Secondly, I like any other man with a pair of genitals attached enjoy BBBJ when possible. However, I limit my time my finishing with the BBBJ when pleasure is most heigthened. I think I got sick once from one girl who sucked me so hard for 20 minutes, my member had turned pink and red from the fricition from being inside her mouth so long. Just a UTI but scared the shit out of me nonetheless. So after finishing with a BBBJ, I proceed to go clean up immediately and drink lots of fluids. It feels so good to piss just after sex as this too reduces the chances of catching something.
Lastly, there are some activities which do no seem to be mentioned here which although I do not participate in or seek, others are putting themselves in a higher risk category. Anything anal for me is just not really right. I even wash my own ass after a girl rims me but when one girl asked me to rim her, I almost burst out laughing. No way I am going in there even when I introduce the finger, I make sure to have alcohol wipes or soap nearby to clean up. I suppose it is not so much getting AIDS that worries me in that zone, it is something like hepatitis which is more common and easier to catch and which is transmitted through fecal matter. The AIDS virus does not live long outside of the human body but I always make sure the condom is still on right before I cum. Great sensation too pulling it right before you cum and right at that moment slowing putting it it again. Or even better, cumming all over her tits!
Originally posted by hysteromania
Lastly, there are some activities which do no seem to be mentioned here which although I do not participate in or seek, others are putting themselves in a higher risk category. Anything anal for me is just not really right. I even wash my own ass after a girl rims me but when one girl asked me to rim her, I almost burst out laughing. No way I am going in there even when I introduce the finger, I make sure to have alcohol wipes or soap nearby to clean up. I suppose it is not so much getting AIDS that worries me in that zone, it is something like hepatitis which is more common and easier to catch and which is transmitted through fecal matter.
Also there is the fact that it smells like shit.
From a post by Zidaho in another section:
Information found on this WSG site regarding the herpes test kit, "PocKit" was GREAT! However, my initial investigation and contact with the company Diagnology indicates I must find a local physician to order the kits for me. The OraQuick for HIV testing can be ordered in 25 lots directly off their web site: www.orasure.com in that quantity they are $300. or $12.00 per kit.
And the winner is ......
I have been researching the subject of testing versus covering in order to quantify the risks involved and have a fair comparison between the two scenarios (see my February 26 post for background), and it's time to post the results. I will start with the conclusions, and then give the details and references. Although the conclusions are similar for HIV and herpes, the reasons are quite different.
Bottom Line
1. As far as catching HIV is concerned, an uncovered vaginal encounter with a provider who tested negative for HIV using OraQuick or MedMira Reveal is about three times safer than a covered vaginal encounter with a provider who was not tested.
2. As far as catching herpes-2 is concerned, an uncovered vaginal encounter with a provider who tested negative for herpes-2 using PocKit is about three times safer than a covered vaginal encounter with a provider who was not tested.
Main Components
The components of the calculation are:
1. The probability that an infected provider tests negative. These are one in 250 for OraQuick (http://www.aegis.com/news/bw/2002/BW021104.html) and one in 25 for PocKit (http://www.pockit.com/pockitpro/herpes_prod_pubs.htm).
2. The relative risk of uncovered versus covered vaginal encounter, which is a factor of seven for HIV transmission (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/hiv/01072004.htm).
3. The "seronegative window" risk, that is the initial period after infection when a person can infect others with the virus, but still tests negative for antibodies (see thebody website (http://www.thebody.com)). The risk is affected by the length of the window, and the infectiousness during it.
It is component 3 that took most of the research. The details follow for herpes-2 (straightforward) and HIV (quite involved).
Herpes
Most of the risk in the testing scenario comes from the one in 25 sensitivity of PocKit. The seronegative window for herpes-2 is 13 days (median) which is very short compared to the professional lifetime of a provider, not to mention that it is the period of the first (and worst) outbreak that should be quite notable hence avoidable. Therefore, the added risk of the seronegative window is very small, and the "three times" estimate comes from comparing 7 for condoms to 25 for PocKit, rounding in favor of condoms.
HIV
This is where it gets a bit complicated. The one in 250 sensitivity of OraQuick is so large that the risk mostly comes from the seronegative window. First, I thought the only factor of that risk was the length of the seronegative window compared to the professional lifetime of an HIV+ provider (since this would give us an estimate of the percentage of HIV+ providers in their seronegative window). That would have made test kits MUCH safer than condoms.
Then came bad news for test kits: Providers are more infectious during the seronegative window because of the high viral load (http://www.aegis.com/pubs/aidsline/2000/jun/A0061887.html). The viral load (http://www.natip.org/viralload.html) measures how much HIV there is in the blood stream. The higher the viral load, the more infectious the person is, which makes sense since there are more viruses to go around. It also makes sense that the viral load gets high during the seronegative window since the antibodies that fight the virus have not formed yet, hence the virus is having a field day multiplying.
Then came some good news for test kits. The profile of the viral load (http://www.thebody.com/cfa/rita_winter02/images/figure1.gif) is high only for a short period, and the resulting infectiousness increases slowly with the viral load (http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2002/18mar02/18male.html). By calculating the average infectiousness from the profile, we get that the seronegative window is equivalent to 80 days of post-window infectiousness. If the professional lifetime of an HIV+ provider is about 5 years, we arrive at the "three times" estimate, again rounding in favor of condoms. If it is more than 5 years, the edge of the test kits will be higher.
Like the herpes initial outbreak (but definitely less dramatic), there are symptoms for the seronegative window in the case of HIV. This is something that I did not know before as I assumed HIV to be totally asymptomatic until full blown AIDS develops. The most common symptoms are fever and rash (http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/recent/primary/053102e.html) which should be somewhat notable. Although this factor magnifies the edge of test kits, it was not considered in the "three times" estimate as it is a bit subjective.
One more factor that favors test kits but was not considered in the calculation is that higher viral loads seem to trigger antibody formation (http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Labs/Archive/Science/Q145347.html), hence shortening the dangerous "blind" period for the test kits.
Final Word
I tried my best to seek out credible references, and to make an unbiased calculation. I would welcome any remarks that criticize or support my references or reasoning, any relevant information that can be verified, or any questions about any aspect of this post. If I made an error, please tell me. My real goal here is to know if I should go the testing route. For that, my vital interest lies in what is the correct conclusion, not who arrived at it.
The flaws I see are:
1) The odds of catching HIV or Herpes with a provider using a condom is an unknown number. It is almost totally dependent upon the rubber breaking - which is an individual statistic for each man - what type or size of condom, how you use it, your sex technique, etc.
2) Whether your provider is going to allow you to administer medical tests in a bar or hotel room.
3) Whether your provider is going to let you have sex with her without a condom no matter WHAT tests you give her and yourself. How does she know that you don't have HIV? How does she know if your testing is real or bogus? Maybe in Thailand but most professional professionals I know in the US or Mexico want it covered. No exceptions. And by using these ladies, your odds of having an HIV infected provider is very low. When you seek out providers who are willing to have unprotected sex, you are already in a high risk pool
Good Luck . . .
Personally, I find the bottom line to be this -- three times safer is still substantially lower than the degree of safety you get using condoms. You want to combine testing with condoms and you're safer still, but one missed per 25 or one missed per 250 is still pretty lousy when you consider the potential consequences.
There are reputable houses - like Nevada or La Yegua in Mexico, where the girls are checked by a doctor each week and given an HIV test. They also require that the women visually check each client and always use a condom and lubricant. The odds of catching something under these circumstances are pretty low - even if the rubber should break.
But when you search out women who ALLOW unprotected sex and then HAVE unprotected sex with them, you are swimming in the deep end of the pool. The "window" of exposure scares me along with the 1 in 25 odds of a false negative. And certainly the odds of having some other infection not tested for is much higher. To me, finding providers who have little chance of HIV is more important. Supposedly, the HIV rate in Nevada brothels is near zero and much lower than the population at large.
Combining the test and a condom would be as safe as possible, but kind of defeats the whole idea . . .
Prokofiev:
Thank you for your response. Here are my comments on some of the points you raised.
>The odds of catching HIV or Herpes with a provider using a condom is an unknown number.
I am only using the relative odds (with versus without condoms), and that is a known number (see the NIH report).
>It is almost totally dependent upon the rubber breaking
No, it is not. Read the report. If you believe that your assessment of the effectiveness of condoms is better than that of the NIH study, I cannot help you.
>But when you search out women who ALLOW unprotected sex and then HAVE unprotected
>sex with them, you are swimming in the deep end of the pool.
You got it backwards. I am not searching out women who allow unprotected sex. I am searching out women who allow being tested. I am not having unprotected sex. I am having uncovered sex with a provider who tested negative, which is safer than having covered sex with a provider who was not tested.
>The "window" of exposure scares me along with the 1 in 25 odds of a false negative.
I wanted to be objective rather than emotional, and that's why I took the trouble to calculate the bottom line. The bottom line is that, all things considered, the testing scenario is safer than the covering scenario.
>2) Whether your provider is going to allow you to administer medical tests in a bar
>or hotel room.
>3) Whether your provider is going to let you have sex with her without a condom no
>matter WHAT tests you give her and yourself. How does she know that you don't have
>HIV? How does she know if your testing is real or bogus? Maybe in Thailand but most
>professional professionals I know in the US or Mexico want it covered.
These practical points are well taken, and need to be addressed. I believe it can be done, but this is just an opinion, not a data-based calculation like the safety issue. For example, I am fairly confident that a provider will accept testing and uncovered sex after you "hit it off" with her the first time (covered), and propose to stay with her for a few days. Anyway, I will be happy to discuss it and will benefit from the different opinions.
>Combining the test and a condom would be as safe as possible, but kind of defeats the whole idea
This is definitely a valid approach, but I agree with you that it is not likely to happen.
Originally posted by joe_zop
Personally, I find the bottom line to be this -- three times safer is still substantially lower than the degree of safety you get using condoms.
You want to combine testing with condoms and you're safer still, but one missed per 25 or one missed per 250 is still pretty lousy when you consider the potential consequences.
Just to be sure there is no confusion, it is three times safer than using condoms.
Again, I agree that if you consider the down side, you will be scared even if the odds are small. Objectively, this would be an argument for abstinence :( . Condoms are certainly safer than bareback (when no testing is involved), but one needs to realize that it is only seven times safer. That is, seven covered encounters carry the risk of one uncovered encounter.
If you are not going to use testing, by all means use condoms without fail. What I am reporting is that testing and bareback is safer than no testing and condom.
Ah, sorry, I misread the statement as being uncovered. Mea culpa on that; needed to drink my coffee before wading in. Have done so now :)
That said, months back I read the entire NIH review cited in your link, and I disagree that it conclusively shows a one in seven rate. In fact, this review stated that the vast majority of the studies out there were so poorly constructed that it was basically impossible to draw any decent scientific conclusions on condom effectiveness, period. It should be kept in mind that this was not a study, but a two-day literature review panel attempting to answer the following: “What is the scientific evidence of the effectiveness of latex male condom-use to prevent STD transmission?” What the panel actually concluded is that most studies looking at the issue were not designed using the optimal method to assess that effectiveness. That 85% decrease rate was simply not a hard and fast number, most certainly not one that was consistent across studies, so drawing probability conclusions from it is rather dicey.
To quote from the study’s executive summary, “The Panel stressed that the absence of definitive conclusions reflected inadequacies of the evidence available and should not be interpreted as proof of the adequacy or inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk of STDs other than HIV transmission in men and women and gonorrhea in men. To definitively answer the remaining questions about condom effectiveness for preventing STD infections will require well-designed and ethically sound clinical studies.” So basically, the report concludes that it can conclude only that condoms reduce rates for HIV and gonorrhea, but not much beyond that. Again (as I actually had an argument on this point with someone, which is why I say it) this doesn't say that condoms don't do wonderful things with STDs -- only that the evidence is insufficient to make scientifically airtight statements in most cases.
This report also very specificially (and unusually, for such a report, which I think makes it significant) cautions that it is not intended to make public health policy recommendations regarding the role of condoms in HIV/STD prevention policy and programs, which is rather similar to what you're trying to use it to do here.
In addition, it should be noted that these newly available tests only claim to screen for HIV-1, not HIV-2, so effectiveness of the test will vary somewhat depending on who you're dealing with and where they're from. Admittedly, HIV-2 is less prevalent in most parts of the world and appears to be less easily transmitted, but that's not necessarily much comfort if you guess wrong. I sure wouldn't want to be use your approach in Africa, that's for sure.
So I find it inaccurate to say, "seven covered encounters carry the risk of one uncovered encounter" particularly if you're coming up with a number that looks at transmission rates between those who are regular condom users and those who are not. It's very much worth noting that a number of the cited studies hedged their bets on those who were infected who said they were regular condom users, in some cases openly doubting the veracity of the reporting.
Don't misunderstand me -- I am a full believer that screening tests work -- I worked in a Red Cross blood bank when HIV testing was first introduced, and part of my job was tracking blood and reasons why donors were screened out. There's no question such testing essentially cleaned up the blood supply. But I'm not particularly comfortable with making a risk analysis that depends on a figure come up with using "meta-analysis of several studies," comparing it to concrete FDA and industry test results, and then using that as a recommendation for behavior. And that's not even dealing with the fact, as has been brought up here repeatedly, that there are practical problems with your scenario in real life.
joe_zop
Many thanks for your detailed and informed post (coffee seems to work well for you :) ). I am glad you took the time to go through the NIH report, and I will comment on your observations.
That said, months back I read the entire NIH review cited in your link, and I disagree that it conclusively shows a one in seven rate. In fact, this review stated that the vast majority of the studies out there were so poorly constructed that it was basically impossible to draw any decent scientific conclusions on condom effectiveness, period.
The inconclusive part was about STDs other than HIV (as you correctly state later in your post). The 85% figure about HIV is conclusive.
That 85% decrease rate was simply not a hard and fast number, most certainly not one that was consistent across studies, so drawing probability conclusions from it is rather dicey.
What the panel did is use established statistical methods to fit the studies it found reliable. If the fit was not good enough, it was considered inconclusive (which happened in the case of other STDs). The fit to the 85% figure was statistically reliable in the case of HIV, as the panel concluded.
To quote from the study's executive summary, 'The Panel stressed that the absence of definitive conclusions reflected inadequacies of the evidence available and should not be interpreted as proof of the adequacy or inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk of STDs other than HIV transmission in men and women and gonorrhea in men. To definitively answer the remaining questions about condom effectiveness for preventing STD infections will require well-designed and ethically sound clinical studies.' So basically, the report concludes that it can conclude only that condoms reduce rates for HIV and gonorrhea, but not much beyond that.
Hear, hear. HIV is the main infection that test kits are concerned with, and as you say, the study does establish the 85% figure in the case of HIV. I extrapolated to herpes-2 (generously, I think, as herpes-2 can be transmitted through areas outside the condom), but I am all ears if people have other information.
Again (as I actually had an argument on this point with someone, which is why I say it) this doesn't say that condoms don't do wonderful things with STDs -- only that the evidence is insufficient to make scientifically airtight statements in most cases.
My point. So the 85% for HIV, which the panel found the evidence sufficient for, is by implication a "scientifically airtight statement"
This report also very specificially (and unusually, for such a report, which I think makes it significant) cautions that it is not intended to make public health policy recommendations regarding the role of condoms in HIV/STD prevention policy and programs, which is rather similar to what you're trying to use it to do here.
Me? public health policy? I'll take this as a compliment :) . Let me repeat what I said in a previous post about the public health issue. It is completely legitimate, even prudent, for public health officials to advocate condoms vigorously even if their effectiveness was just 50%, let alone 85%. We are talking about saving lives, dangers to sociaty, and enormous expenses, using a cheap, simple, and universally recognized tool. If I were a health official, I would not advocate test kits since I need to worry about teen agers who can barely afford a pizza and about morons who may try to fit the test kit on their penis. I wouldn't even publicize the 85% number in order not to discourage the use of condoms. Well, I am not a public health official and I am addressing a constituency of sophisticated traveled adults like yourself who can read the literature and draw their own conclusions.
In addition, it should be noted that these newly available tests only claim to screen for HIV-1, not HIV-2, so effectiveness of the test will vary somewhat depending on who you're dealing with and where they're from. Admittedly, HIV-2 is less prevalent in most parts of the world and appears to be less easily transmitted, but that's not necessarily much comfort if you guess wrong. I sure wouldn't want to be use your approach in Africa, that's for sure.
The companies sought FDA approval for HIV-1 only (marketing in the US where HIV-2 is very rare), but MedMira Reveal (the 3-minute kit) works for both HIV-1 and HIV-2 (see the comprehensive reference on test kits in a previous post of mine).
Don't misunderstand me -- I am a full believer that screening tests work -- I worked in a Red Cross blood bank when HIV testing was first introduced, and part of my job was tracking blood and reasons why donors were screened out. There's no question such testing essentially cleaned up the blood supply. But I'm not particularly comfortable with making a risk analysis that depends on a figure come up with using "meta-analysis of several studies," comparing it to concrete FDA and industry test results, and then using that as a recommendation for behavior.
I am glad you have a technically related background. Let me just mention that (1) I trust NIH more than the industry as NIH is a research entity with no biased agenda, and (2) I am not making any recommendation for behaviour. Just giving information and opinions that adults can read and draw their own conclusions.
And that's not even dealing with the fact, as has been brought up here repeatedly, that there are practical problems with your scenario in real life.
I keep saying this is a valid point worth discussing, but it is a separate issue from the safety. I plan to get into it after the current discussion winds down.
Thanks again, joe_zip.
Ok, since we've gotten into this I went back and actually read the NIH thing again to refresh my memory. I pulled the quotes I used previously from an old newspaper letter exchange I had with someone who was using the study to argue against teaching condom usage in schools -- a position that this particular report has often been used to bolster, unfortunately, which is why I read it in the first place. (I don't do the editorial letter thing a lot, but the letter writer pissed me off with her right-wing christian crapola, and it bugged me to have a corrective study used to distort things.) Hence my comment about the public policy health issue, as the truth is that what we're talking about here -- with adults who presumably can read and follow research, but who also, based on postings in various places on this board, are sometimes folks who go bareback without any testing at all -- is a policy of how to approach mongering with some degree of safety and confidence. So this really rather is a policy discussion in a public place, even if it's not public policy.
I see that the 85% figure is in the review, but I also see that the NIH simply evaluated the meta-analysis done by someone else as opposed to did one themselves, so they do not really provide that 85% reduction rate -- they simply find it's the level they can confidently say is credible, and let's keep in mind that the purpose of this literature review was to basically throw cold water on everything except what could be said for certain (and to call for more studies!) So they've taken the worst-case number here. According to Planned Parenthood's summation of the same study (Davis & Weller, 1999, which I've tried without success to track down on the net) the "meta-analysis of 25 studies on HIV transmission and condoms found that efficacy rates ranged from 87 percent to 96 percent against HIV infection." That's a little different story, isn't it? It's why I say it's not a hard and fast number -- it's scientifically airtight to the degree that the literature review can say for certainty that it's at least that rate -- it may actually be higher. So the disparity between testing and condoms may well not be what you're describing.
The other problem I see is this -- even if you're testing someone for HIV and Herpes, you're not testing them for a host of other bad things such as gonorrhea, syph, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, any of the various strains of hepatitis, etc. So if you're going bareback with the idea that after you've tested them and they've come up negative you're reasonably safe you're still rolling the dice, since many of these other goodies are far more prevalent than HIV. The test you screen for assures you that they don't have that particular gremlin -- not others. And as the NIH report makes clear, just because there's not sufficient scientific evidence to be conclusive doesn't mean that condoms don't work on these other things. My take is still that a condom is the best overall protection for a monger, even if the test is moderately more effective on a single disease or two. (Not to mention the condom is far cheaper and more likely to reassure your temporary partner.)
joe_zop
Points well taken. I am not treating the one in seven as cast in stone, but it is the best scientific estimate available. That's what we have. The conclusion is that test kits are three times safer than condoms. That's our best objective estimate at this point.
Anything that goes against the status quo causes discomfort, and test kits are no exception. Most people have come to terms with condoms, and they don't like to rock the boat. Some may decide that even with the x3 benefit of test kits, they will continue to use condoms only. Some may choose otherwise.
As for the other diseases, please notice that a lot of people on this board do DFK, BBBJ, and/or DATY quite regularly. For them, the reward justifies the risk, whether this is wise or not. Their highest priority is not to catch HIV or herpes, and it is not the end of the world if they risk catching another curable disease.
Having said that, there is a correlation between having different STDs, and one may argue that a provider who passes both your tests is safer for other STDs than an untested provider. One may even argue that the self selection will make providers who know or suspect they have STDs not agree to testing, hence get eliminated. All of this is argumentative. The only fact is the safety level of test kits versus condoms for HIV and herpes. What to do with that is for individuals to decide.
Sabio,
I too reread that study or rather the review of other studies and it repeatedly warns about inadequate data and methods. The Davis and Weller part specificly states that all 12 studies they used had replied upon self-reporting of condom usage and breakage. It would be difficult to do otherwise. And the 85% is a summary estimate. The part that addresses the risk of condom breakage and leakage shows very low numbers for risk of infection due to breakage namely 1 in 167 for breakage infection, 1 in 125,000 for non-visable defect leakage and 1 in 250,000 for non-leakage transfer of a virus. The conclusion: mechanically, condoms are VERY effective in stopping a virus. So how do you get from 99.4% to 85% effective? Not addressed. But logically not all of the "always use" were always using. Not surprising. Also drug use or other transmission routes are possible. Your statement that the NIH would have thought about and addressed these concerns is only partly true. They mentioned many possible flaws -especially self-reporting, but didn't design any of the studies. But to the panel the summary of those studies that were usable proved that condoms are at least 85% effective against HIV and they consider it a positive outcome. With better designed studies the number could be much higher but not any lower.
And the overall theme of the report is that condom usage is highly effective and that even these flawed studies made this apparent. I think these scientists would be horrified to learn that you are taking the 85% effective conclusion as a hard and negative fact and then using it to calculate that non-condom usage with a prostitute could be justified.
Yet I don't really argue with your conclusion that testing a woman, staying with her exclusively for a period of time, first with condom usage and later without is dangerous compared to the alternatives, especially if the time period is more than a couple of days. Just not very practical . . .
I'm a newbie, be gentle. Where can I get OraQuick?
Prokofiev
Thank you for your commentary.
But to the panel the summary of those studies that were usable proved that condoms are at least 85% effective against HIV and they consider it a positive outcome. With better designed studies the number could be much higher but not any lower.
Please point out the page of the report in which the qualification at least is mentioned in connection with the 85% figure, and also the part where it mentions that with better designed studies the number could be much higher but not any lower.
I think these scientists would be horrified to learn that you are taking the 85% effective conclusion as a hard and negative fact and then using it to calculate that non-condom usage with a prostitute could be justified.
I never said that. Non-condom use with a prostitute is one of the riskiest behaviours a person can engage in. The subject of my posts is testing. Imagine if I told you for a fact that the provider you are about to sleep with has AIDS. Would you sleep with her, even with a condom, or would you try someone else? That's what testing allows you to do.
Here's where "at least" enters.
You have a group of "always use" that are self-reporting, a flaw pointed out repeatedly in the study. They can't report more than 100%. But it could be 95%, 90% or less, depending on the participants. Therefore the 85% effective number which is predicated on 100% usage would be higher depending on the true number. And since the real number of infections are very small - just a couple of HIV infections that resulted from lying could make a huge difference. But it can't be lower since virtually every posibility(lying, slipage, breakage, drugs, homosexual activity) would make it higher. I suppose the "never use" group could also be lying and actually use condoms, making their infection rate artifically low . . . but I doubt it.
You also ignore the calculated .006 infection risk number (=1 in 167) for condom usage including breakage (which they say can be as high as 3.2%). How do you go from 1 in 167 to 1 in 7 actual? What is the mechanism? Do you really believe that 7 covered exposures (especially without breaking) equals 1 unprotected exposure? When they calculate exposure without breakage is more like 1 in 125,000? That's crazy.
You seem to want that 1 in 7 number so badly that you refuse to consider any other possibility. But I'm NOT against testing. That is clearly a good idea . . .
Prokofiev
Well, we are about to fill a page of the safe sex section in 24 hours, which should be a record for this section of the board :)
I perfectly understand that the one in seven figure puzzles you. It puzzled me, too. I bought into it because of the credibility of the NIH. If there was an agenda to be had, it would be in favor of getting a bigger number than seven to support public health policy.
I found numbers that are even less than seven on the web, but I didn't "want" them as they came from non-credible sources (for example religious organizations with an obvious agenda).
Perhaps it will make things a bit easier to swallow if you look at the pregnancy numbers. If condoms are used consistently and correctly, they reduce pregnancy by a factor between one in ten and one in twenty. Do you agree that a sperm is bigger than a virus? What is the "mechanism" for it to reach the egg if condoms are as astronomically effective as you project them to be?
Hysteromania
03-31-03, 07:40
Here is another test, more like a lottery but isn´t odds for you anyway? Nice read on stats and info as well, that is if you "get lucky". Would be interesting to see others results.
http://www.ministryofsound.com/music/radio/
Click on the scratch off lottery banner on the left.
Hysteromania
03-31-03, 07:43
Oops, here is a better link for the STD lottery. Seems that the other link always comes up with chlamydia and a 1:1 chance would be too odd and scary!
http://www.playingsafely.co.uk/games/sex_lottery.asp
hysteromania
I'll take your posts as a break to loosen up in the middle of a serious discussion :) .
Of course, all of us are playing the STD lottery except those who choose abstinence. What makes one game of lottery safer than another is ........, you guessed it, the PROBABILITY of catching a particular STD.
Whether you will be lucky or unlucky is beyond your control. What is under your control is choosing a method that has better odds. That's why I am comparing the odds of different methods.
Good luck ;) .
"I perfectly understand that the one in seven figure puzzles you. It puzzled me, too. I bought into it because of the credibility of the NIH. If there was an agenda to be had, it would be in favor of getting a bigger number than seven to support public health policy."
But that is definitely not the purpose of a literature review, and your conclusions on the possible agenda are incorrect. The purpose of a literature review is to look at the bulk of research and determine what it proves can be said for certain and what cannot -- and in this case, that 85% figure is a least common denominator. If there was a real underlying agenda, it was to call for more research, and expressly not to support policy, there being a difference between scientific knowledge and policy-making. Again, this is why the report specifically cautions against using its conclusions for policy purposes.
As far as your statement on pregnancy rates, I'd point to the same review, which references studies on condom usage among married couples, and concludes that education on proper usage decreases breakage, slippage, and pregnancy. The review cites laboratory tests, and very specifically states that condom usage with no breakage and no slippage results in 0.0ml semen exposure and 0.0 relative risk of semen exposure (and by extrapolation, pregnancy) versus non-use. (So your statement on virus size versus sperm size is irrelevant.) Even the numbers with a visible hole are very, very low, with relative risk versus non-use at 0.000008. It references what it considers rigorous studies which show 1.1% and 3% pregnancy rates -- lower than you cite -- among couples using condoms consistently and correctly.
Should I conclude, as someone who's never had a condom break or slip off, that it's safer for me than most people? The answer is probably yes. RN reported here that she never had a condom break in her thousands of encounters, which would mean according to the NIH conclusions she was consistently safe. The real trick here might be learning to use condoms properly, as opposed to learning to use the kits.
This points to a very key important difference -- efficacy versus effectiveness. Again, from the panel, "It is important to distinguish between condom's efficacy, which is the protection that users would receive under ideal conditions, and their effectiveness, which is the protection they provide under actual conditions of use."
The number we're arguing over is a deriviative measurement of effectiveness, not efficacy, whereas the numbers you're using from the testing kit studies are efficacy numbers. The truth is that you're presenting a comparison of apples and oranges -- there are no effectiveness numbers for the kits as there are as of yet no studies of their use by real people in the field, and the reality is that they will no doubt be improperly manipulated by folks who use them, just as condoms are. Thus the true effectiveness rate of the kits will no doubt be much lower than the efficacy rate, (as it can't be higher) just as is the case with condoms.
By the way -- I want to make sure that I say thank you, Sabio, for bringing a high-level concrete discussion here. Regardless of what anyone concludes, this is definitely both stimulating and informative, and my comments, even when I'm disagreeing, should also be taken as full of admiration for the work and thinking you've done.
joe_zop
Thank you for your post and your kind words. Please take my remarks in the same spirit. Even when we disagree, I benefit from your point of view.
"I perfectly understand that the one in seven figure puzzles you. It puzzled me, too. I bought into it because of the credibility of the NIH. If there was an agenda to be had, it would be in favor of getting a bigger number than seven to support public health policy."
But that is definitely not the purpose of a literature review, and your conclusions on the possible agenda are incorrect. The purpose of a literature review is to look at the bulk of research and determine what can it proves be said for certain and what cannot
I said "if there was an agenda to be had" as I don't believe NIH has an agenda other than a research agenda, namely reaching objective conclusions by applying scientific methods to hard data. So I guess we are in agreement here.
It references what it considers rigorous studies which show 1.1% and 3% pregnancy rates -- lower than you cite -- among couples using condoms consistently and correctly.
Here, we are not in agreement. Both the 3% and the 1.1% are the pregnancy rates (in one year for the former study, and in six months for the latter). You need to compare these numbers to the pregnancy rates of non-users over the same period to get the effectiveness of condoms that I referred to.
The number we're arguing over is a deriviative measurement of effectiveness, not efficacy, whereas the numbers you're using from the testing kit studies are efficacy numbers. The truth is that you're presenting a comparison of apples and oranges -- there are no effectiveness numbers for the kits as there are as of yet no studies of their use by real people in the field
No, I am not talking about efficacy (ideal case) of test kits. I am talking about the actual field test numbers for the kits. These field tests were indeed conducted as part of the FDA approval process, and that's how the sensitivity of the test was calculated.
sabio
thanks for finding those numbers that i was unable to track down. your efforts are very much appreciated.
just as a caveat, however. alot of the numbers are actually estimates which may or may not be borne out/corroborated on further investigation. nevertheless, i was very interested when i heard them the first time just to get a rough idea of what was what.
so the caveat is that the estimates are guesses based on current information, and the degree to which they are innacurate may be greatly magnified or minimized when subjecting them to mathematical manipulation. trying to get a clear estimate of some other issue by extrapolating those numbers can lead to further innacuracies
so thanks again for finding that, i will go read it. hope this contributes a little.
hooky
ps i will also look more closely at your analysis, i admit i knd of fell off this thread for a while and just skimmed it when i came back. also, i agree with joe z in his concluding remarks.
My farewell post
The forum moderator suspended my instant posting privileges and sent me an e-mail that included the following
I reviewed all your forum posts and observed that the only subject that you seem to post about is the testing kits. Given the number of posts on essentially the same subject, I am suspicious of your agenda
I am stunned that an intellectual discussion at the core of the subject of safe sex draws this reaction from him. However, I do not wish to invest my time and effort in a place where I am not welcome, so this will be my last post. I guess the quality of Nibu's posts warrant creating new sections for him, and the quality of my posts are not up to par. Well, it is the moderator's prerogative to make that judgment.
Just because he raised the "agenda" issue, let me tell you that I am not affiliated with NIH or any test kit company, nor do I have financial interest in any of them (nor have I shorted any condom companies :) ). What started me on this was a post in another section
Originally posted by Z Ice Blue on February 18, 2003
Hi
Can someone point me to a good quick HIV test kit, and where to buy it from, and its cost. Also, is it multi use, or for single use only.
thanks
z
My immediate impression was "Dream on." I just did not think that such kits (legitimate ones) existed. Then came a response
Originally posted by Surfer on February 23, 2003
Z Ice Blue-What you need is Ora-Kwik, a one time test kit taking 20 minutes and with an accuracy rate of over 99%. JUST approved for use in US but you can't just buy them here. I have a few extra I'd sell you (I bought them in Thailand where they can be legally bought over the counter). I'll be in Rio on Wednesday the 26th so drop me an email (XTNsurfer@hotmail.com) if interested.
and I started looking into it. The result was my posts that started on February 26.
I would like to thank all the board members who took part in this stimulating discussion, including AddictedToWomen, denringer, Dick Johnson, Freeler, hooky, HeadGames, hysteromania, joe_zop, lookr, monkeyboi, joe_zop, PRBuck, purplengold, Prokofiev, RN, and skinless. Please forgive me if I inadvertently offended anyone during a heated discussion. The essence of a lively discussion is disagreement. As the saying goes "where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much."
Good bye.
Don't be so dramatic. Your membership will remain active, and you are encourage to continue making contributions in the future.
Jackson
Jackson, I think you're following US foreign policy a bit too closely. Do we now root out suspected abusers before they actually do something? Sabio's always been on-topic, intelligent, polite and non-abusive, and it's not like he's going everywhere on the site yapping about testing kits or that he's been talking about only one manufacturer in some sort of veiled sales pitch.
Sabio, regardless of this move, which I absolutely don't understand, I hope you'll keep posting.
HERPES SCAIREd ok on my last trip i fucked 25 women safe sex and 1 from iquittos peru with out i did all the tests and alot of research herpes is not just the blisters on the dick you can have it by skin contact and never have the blisterS there is a test that you get it is a blood test that tests for both herpes 1 and 2 they say 40 mil people have herpes in the states or will get it well luckliy i am negative JUST WANTED TO STRESS IF YOU DONT SEE A RED INFLAMED UGLY PIMPLE CRUSTY PUSSY THEY STILL MIGHT HAVE IT AND NOT HAVE SYMPTOMS> justa freindley jab at people like me that think they know it all. like johny carson usta say I DID NOT KNOW THAT
Herpes is easily the most misunderstood std. The rules however are very simple. At age 21 90% of poeple in the U.S have Oral (type 1) herpies. 60% will have one outbreak upon thier initial exposure, and will never have another outbreak. These poeple are non transmitters. The other thirty percent will have intermittent outbreaks where they are able to transmit the disease when they have open sores. If they go down on you with open sores you can become infected with type two, genital herpes. Otherwise if the girl has type 2 she may have sores that she may not be aware of that can infect you. If you have safe sex, and the condom remains intact, there is a very low transmission rate. You probably can't get type one from kissing her either as if you are American, and have dated a bit, your chances of not having it already are very low. Bottom line the herpies virus is low on the scale of worries. Take this scenario for instance. Like her on top? Her Virus loaded vaginal secretions pool in you anus as they mix with her sweat, giving easy access to mucous membranes. Infected!
SeeksGoodTime
05-03-03, 13:13
Thanks for that info on herpes. I just got back from Costa Rica (see report) and had quite q bit of BBBJ. I always wondered what the true risk was if there was no outbreak visible.
Another things that I wondered is why are more women likely to give BBBJ than DFK. Is this more an emotional thing do you believe? Seems like more could be caught from pre-come during BBBJ than saliva exchange.
Hysteromania
05-06-03, 08:45
The disease I am quite worried about is something like Hepatitis B. It is said that the chances of catching it are 100 times more than HIV and that it can stay on the surface of an area for up to 1 month! I can imagine in hot and humid place like SE Asia, these figures are probably even more scary as bacteria thrive in these environments.
My questions though are:
Is it cureable?
Can it be caught more than once?
Is it a terminal illness?
Why are 3 vaccinations necessary- taken first, 1 month later, then 6 months again
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4115.htm
Hepatitis B isn't "curable" per se -- you don't get it completely out of your system, but if you recover from the infection and are not a chronic infectee then you're no longer a carrier. There are treatments for it and for its physical effects, but not cures. It can definitely be caught more than once, and that's generally where you get more serious health problems.
About 30% of the people who get it show no symptoms. Those who do, however, can definitely have serious problems, including chronic liver disease, which kills 15-25% of chronically infected people. (6% of adults who get it become chronic, so that means about a 1 to 1.5% overall fatality rate for adults.) A quarter of the people who get it become ill with jaundice, about 15% of those requiring hospitalization, and a small percentage do die from that. About 5000 people die from it each year in the U.S. Supposedly, Hep B is responsible for 80% of all liver cancer worldwide.
The reason for the three treatments is to provide maximum protection and duration -- it's cumulative in effectiveness, with three treatments protecting about 90% of people. The first shot provides up to 50% protection, the next up to 80%, and the last up to 100%.
By the way -- Hep B is spread only via blood and body fluids, so though it is robust and can survive once exposed to the air, the transmission that way is more limited. (It can survive a week in dried blood!) It's Hepatitis A that can be spread more easily in food, drink, unclean surfaces, etc.
Track Addict
05-16-03, 00:17
Bottom line the herpies virus is low on the scale of worries. Take this scenario for instance. Like her on top? Her Virus loaded vaginal secretions pool in you anus as they mix with her sweat, giving easy access to mucous membranes. Infected! [/i][/QUOTE]Here's another one. Condom fully engaged, Penis fully inserted>>>going long and deeeeep> a week later with a full outbreak around the base of the shaft and scrotum> no muccous membranes necessary.
Had to explain that one to the "significant other", not fun.
Thought I was having safe sex. If I hadn't a been making her come and scream at that time I didn't even NEED to be going that deep (that's the worst part).
Herpes is a horrible virus, it's painful and disgusting and depressing and it makes me feel guilty and ashamed. Even though it is controllable with Valtrex, I wouldn't wish it on anybody.
Hello.
I was wondering if anyone had heard of any web sites, or had any information regarding the prevalence of HIV/AIDS as relates to prostitution specifically. I have been doing this for a couple of years now, and recently had the frightening experience of a condom breaking. I got tested, and it came up negative, but I know it takes a few months before it shows up on a test. How scared should I be?
Any help would be appreciated.
I had intercourse without a rubber last week in Tijuana, Mexico. I didn't mention it over in the Mexico forum, I thought I'd get feedback here first. A girl, 28, from India charged only $60 for the half hour and when I couldn't cum she offered to take the condom off. She asked me if I was clean. I thought to myself a lot of good that will do her if I say yes. I've tested negative for STDs including AIDS. I told her I'm clean of course. And as I took off the rubber I'm thinking my god what if I get vd and how would these forums react if they found out I did this. So I went ahead inside her in missionary, it felt great and I climaxed inside.
She gave me her home phone in Tijuana and later in the Adelita Bar next to the hotel she started talking about her baby girl, having no money, her rent and marriage to someone like me. Well maybe the whole thing was to get me to be a regular customer I can see that. But I don't have the money to pay her rent or even half of it. I won't play the boyfriend after reading the forums here. Anyway was that a stupid thing to do, sex with no condom? I guess so. So far no lesions or sores on the pecker after 7 days.
PhilT
Phil . . .
Do you really need to ask that question? I think you are well aware of the answer . . .
Good Luck, -P
Phil...
Did you stop and think....was SHE clean?? I'd worry more about catching STD's like herpes, gonnorea(sp?) and such when not using a condom.
I've read in some places that unless your penis is nicked or cut or is sore, its difficult for you to catch HIV because the virus cannot enter any other way. I've also heard that HIV can enter through the urethra opening but I'm not too sure about this fact, maybe some of the members would care to shed some light on this topic.....
anexpat
Here is my take on this
Here is my history. I have had a lot of BBBJs from hookers. One time when I lived in LA, I got bitten by a mosquito and came down with inflammation of the brain and thought I was going to die, really. I was munching on a burrito in a outside café and some chick asked me if I saw this guy in a chevy. I said no. she asked if I could drive her to pick up something and she would make if worth my while. So I drove her to her moms house and they talked for a while. She came out pissed and wanted to leave. From what I guess she just got out of institution (really) and also just had a baby. She was telling me that she was bi and was a lesbian hooker. So in the back of a parking lot she tried to give me a BBBJ but couldn’t do it. So she tells me she needs a place to stay and wants to f**k. So we go back to my place. She tells me not to wear a rubber and she doesn’t believe in aids. I figure I am going to die anyways and I did her with out a rubber. A couple weeks later I got better, but that thing about not believing in aids remark bugged me. Now last year I was in Honduras. The damn hookers kept stealing my rubbers. So it was a pain to get one out of my suit case. A couple of times I was really drunk and said WTF and didn’t use one. I have really investigated this, the incidence of female to male infection is fairly low. I think around 4%. So far I have had 4 aids test and all negative over the years. My last one was just a few months ago. The CDC has taken prostitution off the high risk list. They are not seeing the numbers they thought they would. Do I say throw caution to the wind, no. I talked to a aids doctor and he said the chances of you catching it if you have unprotected sex with a person who has aids is around 1 in 300. The only thing I worry about is when I see a hooker with scabs on her face. Could mean she has HPV, basically sexual warts.
Here is my take on sex with pros. Always wear a rubber, just use a good one. I like Avanti: I think it is the most sensitive (The maufacturer promotes it that way.) It's not latex, but some other man-made material, just more sensitive than latex. Now, I cannot come with a latex rubber on under any circumstances, especially if I've had a few drinks(numbs me.) But, with the Avanti- no problem. Heard that they could tear with violent buttfucking, but who's really going to let you violently fuck their ass? Must have been a gay thing. Nothing personal.
I am new to this hobby.
Is eating pussy safe?
Is missionary position safer than cow-girl while in no rubber situation?
Is it ok let the girl sucking your dick without condom?
Thanks a lot
EDITOR's NOTE: Posting of this report was delayed pending revisions for capitalization and punctuation. To avoid future delays, please refrain from using the "chat room" style of writing with no caps or punctuation. Thanks!
Avanti is polyurathane, for people who are allergic to latex. It's thinner than latex so people say they feel the body heat more through it. It may well enough protect against AIDS and pregnancy but it hasn't been scientifically proven as absolute truth so there is still testing going on.
Here's a quote from the website:
The risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STD's), including AIDS (HIV infection), are not known for this condom. A study is being done.
Also remember not to use a spermicide condom, supposedly spermicide makes latex weaker, ever so slightly but also irritates the skin, where something can enter.
Mool
Hysteromania
07-14-03, 22:05
Originally posted by Hanzo
I am new to this hobby.
Is eating pussy safe?
Is missionary position safer than cow-girl while in no rubber situation?
Is it ok let the girl sucking your dick without condom?
Thanks a lot
EDITOR's NOTE: Posting of this report was delayed pending revisions for capitalization and punctuation. To avoid future delays, please refrain from using the "chat room" style of writing with no caps or punctuation. Thanks!
Welcome Hanzo, I am fairly new too (less than 1 year mongering!) but hope I can answer you questions with some knowledge based on my own experience.
Eating pussy can be good fun but I have become anal (no, not that way!) about how I proceed before I decide to eat it or not. First when you pull the panties off, visually look around the outside for any abnormal growths like warts or herpes, then I kiss around her inner thighs to get her in the mood as it can tickle but more importantly, any strong odors at this point can be detected.
If things are still okay, I will insert a finger or two and play with her and by this point if all goes well, I dive in!! ;) NOTE: no matter what people tell you, pussy should not smell! Later you may get deep inside or get her juices going but that is a different story. Secondly, do not brush your teeth right before this. Most people's gums bleed after brushing so beware. And lastly, something that I love most about Asians, get her to wash it before you dive in. You can do the test of senses before like sight, touch and smell before you taste. Why am I so careful? Urinary tract infections are cureable and not dangerous but cause discomfort- imagine pissing razor blades! Yes, you can get one from just oral sex- either receiving or giving, believe me.
As for getting the BBBJ, this feels even better but also carries the risk but it is much more of a risk for her, especially if CIM, than it is for you. Still you should use caution by washing right after, etc.
Now that you have read this far, you can imagine what my position is about no condom. Unless you really know her well and have practiced safe sex for months, USE A CONDOM! But some people are too intent on stimulating satisfaction before common sense. This being said if you are solely intent on doing this, do the missionary position better and then choose to cum all over her. The more time you are inside of her, the more chances of exchanging bodily fluids. Less of risk at least than eating pussy but make sure you wash very well and it is much better if you urinate shortly after as these both reduce the chance of catching something.
Don't fall for bullshit lines like she is on the pill, you are her first customer, etc. I have met people in the Philippines who have told me stories about rape charges linked to doing semen tests (your evidence inside her is stronger than fingerprints!) or false pregnancy stories later to get more money out of you. Or the worst I heard, someone who screwed a "virgin" turned out to be a girl on the rag who simply bled all over him during the cowgirl position. Ugh@!
Hysteromania,
The smell test is of little use in detecting HIV, herpes, hepatitis or most viral infections /STD's. It is more about bacterial or yeast/fungal infections or just plain lack of washing. Smell doesn't necessarily equate with high risk and certainly lack of smell tells you little about a woman's viral load. Also you cannot get a urinary tract infection by eating pussy - although you might transmit one to her or get one from a BBBJ . . . if that is what you meant.
Odds of catching AIDs from oral sex- pretty damn low. Herpes 2 or gonorrhoea from a BBBJ - very possible. Especially when you consider the number of partners that most pro women encounter. While a "normal" woman you date may have had 5-50 partners in a lifetime (typical), a pro will have had 300-5000+ and if you are getting BBBJ and CIM you can bet that the other 1000 or so guys did too. And probably many times during the previous few days or hours . . .
All in all, I find I sleep better at night knowing I used a rubber for CBJ . . . especially if you have a wife or significant partner which whom you have unprotected sex. Yes, many of the STD's are cureable -though not all- but it is hard to explain to her why you gave her the infection, and more importantly is unfair to someone who trusted you sexually.
Holland Report
07-18-03, 12:38
No, I agree. In fact 'safe sex' is really a contradiction in terms. No sex is really safe. You're always at SOME risk, be it increased risk of prostate cancer, herpes, treatable STDs or HIV/AIDS and death! Not trying to be alarmist. Just making a valid point. As with everything else in life, you have to make your own decisions/judgements, in view of your particular life circumstances, as to whether these risks are worth it! For me, I don't think they are. So I just use a rubber for everything and, hopefully, the worst risk I face is some kindof rubber allergy! :-)
Thank you so much for the invalueable informaion. Sound you travel a lot and had lots of taste.
Originally posted by hysteromania
Welcome Hanzo, I am fairly new too (less than 1 year mongering!) but hope I can answer you questions with some knowledge based on my own experience.
Eating pussy can be good fun but I have become anal (no, not that way!) about how I proceed before I decide to eat it or not. First when you pull the panties off, visually look around the outside for any abnormal growths like warts or herpes, then I kiss around her inner thighs to get her in the mood as it can tickle but more importantly, any strong odors at this point can be detected.
If things are still okay, I will insert a finger or two and play with her and by this point if all goes well, I dive in!! ;) NOTE: no matter what people tell you, pussy should not smell! Later you may get deep inside or get her juices going but that is a different story. Secondly, do not brush your teeth right before this. Most people's gums bleed after brushing so beware. And lastly, something that I love most about Asians, get her to wash it before you dive in. You can do the test of senses before like sight, touch and smell before you taste. Why am I so careful? Urinary tract infections are cureable and not dangerous but cause discomfort- imagine pissing razor blades! Yes, you can get one from just oral sex- either receiving or giving, believe me.
As for getting the BBBJ, this feels even better but also carries the risk but it is much more of a risk for her, especially if CIM, than it is for you. Still you should use caution by washing right after, etc.
Now that you have read this far, you can imagine what my position is about no condom. Unless you really know her well and have practiced safe sex for months, USE A CONDOM! But some people are too intent on stimulating satisfaction before common sense. This being said if you are solely intent on doing this, do the missionary position better and then choose to cum all over her. The more time you are inside of her, the more chances of exchanging bodily fluids. Less of risk at least than eating pussy but make sure you wash very well and it is much better if you urinate shortly after as these both reduce the chance of catching something.
Don't fall for bullshit lines like she is on the pill, you are her first customer, etc. I have met people in the Philippines who have told me stories about rape charges linked to doing semen tests (your evidence inside her is stronger than fingerprints!) or false pregnancy stories later to get more money out of you. Or the worst I heard, someone who screwed a "virgin" turned out to be a girl on the rag who simply bled all over him during the cowgirl position. Ugh@!
Hysteromania
07-22-03, 00:48
Never said I had all of the answers and yes, you are right about smell does not equate to STD detection easily. I just see it that if a girl is careless down there, that spells trouble in other areas as these things go together as one complication can increase chances of others. For example, chlymadia and gonorhea can occur.
As for the pros, I guess I still like em young (if I wanted to do 30 year olds, I could be patient and date instead!). But we pay for generally what we can not easily attain otherwise. Just remember that if a girl say has sex on average 10 times a week all year, that is a whopping 520 guys, with multiple sessions likely thus increasing risk. Not trying to scare anyone, but be be careful and remember the six degrees of "penetration" as she probably has done it with someone who has something!
What I usually look for when I risk a bbbj is if the girl has a good set of teeth. Now, I know that this is not the end all, beat all test, but if the girl has good oral hygiene, I feel more comfortable with it. If she is a snaggle-tooth, then I won't let her come near my dick! But, if she has a nice clean smile, then I don't worry about a bbbj if I wash it off right after. I always keep some anti-bacterial baby-wipes in the car for this purpose. You can wipe it off on the spot and reduce your risk!
And, if your wife questions why the hell you have baby-wipes in your car, tell her that you go out to eat ocassionally and want to wash your hands off before you eat, without having to use their nasty bathroom.
Hi guys,
Just a doubt: do you believe it is too dangerous to eat the pussy of a prostitute? I know that a prostitute can have many partners a day, but I also think it is very frustrating having sex without eating pussy. It is like enjoying a good dinner without the dessert! I know eating pussy can cause herpes, but what about HIV/AIDS? Is it risky or not?
Personally I sometimes visit a brazilian pro who work in an apartment. We always use condom (covered blow job and covered vaginal sex) and I know she uses it also with all the others customers. Can HIV be transmitted by saliva? In other words, if one of her customers who is HIV positive decides to eat her pussy (with covered blow job and covered vaginal sex), do you believe she can be infected by him? If yes, this can be dangerous for the others who eat her pussy after and can get the virus...
Or do you believe it is necessary a complete sexual intercourse without protection to be infected?
Thanks for suggestions!
Stay cool,
Mad Frax
Hey Guys.
I really get pissed off when I hear "as long as it's safe for ME" from guys. I DO realise you are PAYING to have sex with a girl but it's still simply awful to insist on certain things that are not safe for the sake of your personal fun.
Not to do a sob story but I ended up in this job because it was the only way to fund my studies. I'm 21 years old and I hope to be able to find a normal job as soon as the time intensive part of the course is over. It's not that I don't enjoy it but it does ruin your reputation, especially if you live in a comparatively small city. Also, you do expose yourself to a certain risk, even if you work safely, that is EVERY DAMN THING WITH A RUBBER, no exceptions made, ever. The only thing that hasn't caught on in this country is the concept of dental dams for cunnilingus. So there is a risk there. I always worry about where his mouth has been before. Unless he does a damn fine job in which case I kind of can't do the thinking and the enjoying at the same time.
I think it's downright irresponsible to demand BJ's without rubbers and CIM is just something I would NEVER do with a stranger. I'm not suicidal, after all.
When customers whinge about this fact I just cooly give them my standard answer: "Well, I'll get back to you about that the day I have NOTHING left to lose" Some get it and shut up about it forever, others are just confused. They don't realise that doing more "reckless" practices is a way of making a lot of money in very little time. There's no way of tracking a pro so if I was a money-minded, selfish type of girl whose health is buggered up, I'd just go in there guns blazing and enjoy what life has to offer against cash.
VilunyaChert
10-21-03, 14:13
Swiss Gal writes: "The only thing that hasn't caught on in this country is the concept of dental
dams for cunnilingus."
You said it. I spent an afternoon looking for dental dams in Geneva, no luck. (It would have
helped if I knew the French for "dental dam"--I'm not shy but I just couldn't see myself trying
to give a long-winded explanation of what I was looking for to any of the clerks in the pharmacies.)
So I ended up doing without the particular snack I had been looking forward to all week.
For future reference, what *do* you call a dental dam in French? German? Maybe I'll get to Zurich
next time I'm in your country...
Swiss Gal,
I would think that a woman getting HIV from a man during cunnilingus would have to be THE most difficult and unlikely way possible. Him getting it from you? Far more likely, but still remote.
Despite all the studies and words written about this topic, the necessary experiments to prove whether HIV can be contracted though oral sex have not and will not be done. Impossible. Studies such as the SF gay-men study where KNOWN HIV + men were ejaculating into the mouths of HIV - men, showed that none of the negative became infected. Doesn't prove it COULN'T happen, but suggests it is very unlikely. The few cases where women have been infected by HIV+ men though oral sex are based on the premise that no known alternative transmission routes were present. No anal or vaginal intercourse, IV drug use or IV medical procedures. How can the researcher be SURE of this information? Can't. Could anyone be lying or simply forgetting something? Of course. If large numbers claimed this was happening then statistically it might be significant. But as things stand, all that can be concluded is that it is theoretically possible and MAY have occured, but is highly unlikely.
By the way, are you really Swiss? Your English is so perfect and so American that I have to wonder.
Cheers, -P
Swiss Gal, I think the bottom line is, frankly, that guys have a different mindset on the whole thing that's based on knowing that they're simply less at risk than is a woman. Women are more likely to catch just about every STD there is, and be more greatly affected by most. If you're a guy, you worry about AIDS, herpes, and then consider the rest of the spectrum a rather minor and curable price to pay for extra sensation. Not saying it's smart or right, just that it is the way most guys I know tend to feel.
And you're darn right that dental dams are too difficult to find. I've tracked mine down in a Safe Sex Store, and you can order them online, but you sure as heck can't wander into most pharmacies and choose them from a rack like you can condoms. And forget completely about finding them in places like Africa or Southeast Asia.
Question -- why don't you provide the dental dam for your clients? Get some of the flavored ones, some water-based lube, and you could probably have some fun teaching old dogs new tricks and also eliminate the thinking even when the job he's doing is just so-so :)
About 8-9 months ago I was reading a discussion on this site about HSVII test kits sold by Diagnology under the name POCkit. I bought a 5 pack for about $100. The kits are awesome, easy to use and greatly reduce the hazard of unprotected sex plus they are FDA approved. It's the ONLY "at home/hotel" herpes test kit available which does not require special equipment, 2 hour incubation, expensive $50. +, and training. I have used all my kits up. And in doing so I might add, got laid by some absolutely beautiful American women who I know would have otherwise told me to spontaneously fuck off!! Also, the kit makes a great excuse for playing Doctor!! Anyway, I had planned on using them in Thailand, but it just didn't seem to be necessary when I got there with condoms.
Now, I tried to buy some more this week and discovered Diagnology has filed bankruptcy in the last two months. CDC said bankruptcy had nothing to do with efficacy of their kit. I have done a detailed research to locate something comparable, and spoke with various people in the Herpes organizations. There is NOTHING else out there. WOW that is dissapointing!
The company is located in Belfast, N. Ireland. I quess I'll call and try to locate a court appointed Bankruptcy Trustee. Possibly learn who bought the inventory, or if I can buy what's left. Does any one know how quickly inventory is liquidated in a bankruptcy. Any suggestions on getting some more of these kits? PLEASE HELP! It sure is a great tool, for for nailing FREE sex with those classy, and smart American ladies!
Thanks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/3250785.stm
BBC: Self Test Quiz on condoms. John Skinles got them all right, except for eight of them.
Well I know there is probably not much interest from the mongers about this: it's a urine test for Chlamydia cost about $100.00 When my physcician told me he would need to swab the uretha channel of my favorite friend to test for Chlamydia it gave me the creeps. So I found this site: http://www.requestatest.com/pages/2/index.htm For a $100. you can have lab-work done on a urine test, drawn and sent from the privacy of ones own home. Just in case someone wants the test and without the alternative discomfort.
I think someone on this site suggested cutting that new over the counter cream Abreva with astroglide or other lubricant. I asked a physcian to prescribe me some of the topical cream nameed Zyclovir/Acyclovir. I'm going to use it around the base of the shaft when I start mongering in Rio and Sao Paulo next week. I think just as a added precaution I'm going to take a few free samples (coupons on the web) for the the Famvir and Valtrex oral suppression tablets for HSV just in case I see red bumps. I don't know do you think it would add some protection if I took one of those a day, for the couple of weeks I'm mongering down there?
A few weeks ago l bought 12 of those 10 minute HIV blood test kits (non FDA approved) called Discreet for $20.00 each. I would not recomend these kits, the instructions are confusing I even had a physician friend in my office help me perform the test. We got a POSITIVE reading. Tt freaked the MotherF out of me! I beelined to the clinic for a blood test that afternoon! It came back negative a week later. Wow, it was frightning, I remember thinking denial is the first stage, then I started to seriously consider if I should just go back to Kansas and die! I then downloaded further test instructions from their web site. I began seeing how the results could be easily mis-interepreted. This was after doing three of those stupid tests on myself! Wow, that was a wake up call!
Safe mongering trails to us all!
Wow, I spoke with my pharmacist today. He said over the counter Abreva cream is better at BLOCKING transmission of HSVII then Zovirax/Acyclovir. I bought about 5 of those little tubes of Abreva for $15.00 each. I asked him about getting a free sample of Valatrex or Famvir as I wanted to have something to quickly suppress a HSVII outbreak if contracted in the monger field. He said I should consider taking it as a body prophalactic to block getting the virus. I'm going to get a three week supply via free samples just to play it ultra safe. The stuff is horribly expensive about $200 for a 30 day supply. Bought some of those antimicrobial hand wipes today, similar to baby wipes, some Alluna herbal sleeping pills which I think work very well and a homepathic called "No Jet Lag" which I swear really works for me. I'm going to wear a respiratory mask on the flight because I feel that is one of the most suseptible environments for catching a bacterial infection. I'm playing everything close to the vest because my little guy deserves all the fun I can give him!!
Sweeeeeeeeeet, I used the on-line free sample coupons for Valtrex and Famvir printed from their web sites. Using as body (armour) prophalactics against HSV-1-2 while mongering the next 3 weeks in Brazil and Argentina. Got 28 Famivir and 10 Valtrex from pharmacy, over $150.00 worth of pharmaceuticals for FREE. NICE!!! Safe mongering trails to us ALL!
Stephen Horndog
12-11-03, 04:56
I have screwed at least four hundred different hoes over the years and I never use a condom. I always blow my load inside them even if they think I am going to pull out. I have never caught anything more then clymadia. I wash my weiner imediately after I ejaculate my load inside of them with a 99.9% germ killing anti-bacterial extensively over my penis including the pee hole. The plain fact is you cannot get HIV from vaginal sex. Any guy who gets it is bi-sexual and has been screwed in the ass by another man. Thems the facts whether you likes it or not. Thank goodness for anti-bac soaps and lotions.
And you're a doctor who's qualified to make such a statement, which contradicts all authoritative information, right? The "facts" are that you've been stupid but lucky, and somehow think your luck translates into medical wisdom.
Stephen Horndog,
I tend to agree with you, or would at least go as far as to say that the penetrative partner, if circumsized and having reasonably well lubed sex(either naturally or KY), has little chance of aquiring hiv. But I would add that anal sex is also not particularly risky for the penetrator, regardless of the gender of the anus he is penetrating.
Just one question - where do you practice the hobby? I find it is somewhat harder, though far from impossible, to get bareback from girls working in the US than here in S.E. Asia. Do you have a hard time finding ones that will do it?
Late Night
12-13-03, 20:20
Dear Gents,
Could an expert comment on whether shaving your private unit increases the chances of getting STDs?
As always, thanks in advance.
Latenightbootycalls!
Well I got 4 out of 10 right on Skinless' condom quiz, which is an F in my book, but at least got the only important one right: which kind doesn't prevent STDs. One of the 4 I got right (size of female condom) I just fucking guessed.
Seriously Stephen and Opebo:
HIV is transmitted through bodily fluids except saliva. Now a women's vaginal fluid can maintain the HIV virus, when you penis is in her it opens partially, exposing you the fluid. Remember fluid can come out of your penis and so could some go back in.
Seriously men, I wont go into this further as it is an obvious subject.
Dont you think its spreading around enough, not only HIV but other STDs.
GettingTang
12-14-03, 02:02
I too had similar results with this Discreet test. Luckily I had found several complaints on numerous websites regarding the reliability of the test and exactly how to read the results. As soon as you watch the blood and solution mix pass through the reader window, if no line forms under the "T" section, then your negative. If any line forms AFTER the "C" line has showed it should be disregarded! If you did not know this, you're in for one roller coaster ride with this test. I managed to get a hold of them by phone and they told me a line will ALWAYS form under the positive reaction part eventually!
I went out and got a real test which was negative. Same as the discreet test. I seriously wonder if this test is real at all. I have suspicion it is a complete, absolute fraud, but who knows.
As for there being no chance of catching HIV from intercourse without a condom?!? You're, nuts dude. True it is lower risk then bareback anal, or sharing a needle, but it's a real risk, people catch HIV this way every thirty seconds around the world. Just ask people in Africa.
HIV is real people, you have to take precautions to avoid it. 48,000,000 people world wide have it. Most caught it from heterosexual sex acts! True stat! I monger as much as any of you do. I fear and respect the disease, but I try and play it safe. I went bareback with receiving blowjobs for some 10 years, I now even cover up for those too.
And a quick question..............How popular do you think Thailand, or other major monger watering hole will be once a cure or vaccine for HIV comes? I'm willing to bet flights to Bangkok are sold out for years in advance once HIV is curable or a real vaccine is made!
GETTINGTANG~!
I have had unprotected anal sex with over 10,000 prostitutes, mostly in Africa. I also shoot up a lot. Needles are expensive so I normally borrow one from my bisexual neighbor. It's kind of a hassle because I have to wait until he is done using them to clean his fingernails but man do I save a lot of money.
So far I have avoided any STDs because after I come in her ass I stay in there until she farts and I think that does a pretty good job of blowing all the germs off my dick. Just in case, though, I use the needle I just shot up with to clean out my piss hole.
Hey Opebo and Horndog, let's get together and party some time.
Dickhead: Maybe Ruli in China would suit you. Over 80% of the hookers go skinless and the HIV rate is about the same.
Huge Erection
12-14-03, 13:16
I saw on the nvbrothels board that somebody got herpes at Viking Resort in the DR.
Slappy Balls
12-15-03, 04:58
Dick Head,
You really are a dickhead. Wow what a guess. Any ways you people know nothing. Any doctor will tell you that you cannot get AIDS from vaginal sex. There is not one documented case of hetrosexual aids. So you guys can end this debate right now. Go ask your doctor and he will tell you that unless you are engaging in anal sex with another man you've got no worries.
So put your dam chickens in a condom if you like but every chick I screw is bareback.
Swiss Tiger
12-15-03, 09:56
Dickhead
"Probably the best post I have seen in a very very long time!"
Had me laughing my socks off.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why do people still think that HIV is not a problem? We all know that homosexuals, IV drug users and prostitutes are the highest risk areas for western men to catch the disease.
Opebo and Horndog,
If a stranger held a pistol to your head and told you they didn't know if it was loaded or not, but that they would pull the trigger anyway, how would you feel? I suspect that the least you would do is fart, at worst faint with pants full of your farts follow through!
Having unprotected sex with a prostitute in some countries is not far away from playing Russian Roulette. (Esp in Russia, Africa and Asia, see the latest HIV spread statistics).
You may well be clean, but answer this question, were all the guys who fucked your prostitute in the last 7 days clean as well?
You never know 100%.
A girl working in a brothel may have over 10 partners in a night, thats 70 in a working week! Even if they get tested regularly for HIV and other STD's, they would get tested "at best" once a month. (Law in Germany I think!)
That works out to be some 300+ clients between tests if you are lucky.
If a girl has an annual test then thats 3600+....... Go figure how many of those would be totally clean fucks?
If she lets you fuck her in the ass without a condom then I guarantee that YOU are NOT the first!
I think you will get the idea that the risk factor of infection is now rising rapidly.
At the top end of the scale a high class girl in a cabaret or some such won't sleep with as many men, but will go longer between tests.
To catch HIV, from anal or vaginal sex you need only transfer enough infected fluid to cover the nail of your little finger - FACT! It does not have to be blood transferal, although the fluid does have to get into your blood stream, and can be easily done through tiny tears in your dick.
It is inlikely that you will catch HIV from oral sex, unless she uses her teeth and dribbles alot, and has bleeding gums, or if you are the "giver" then if your gums bleed you are AT RISK. (teeth brushing before and immediately after is ill advised, as is eating hard food like crisps, cookies etc) HIV will not survive in the stomach due to the acid.
The only good thing about your posts (opebo & horndog) is that you remind the rest of us of need to wear condoms and protect ourselves, and I/we hope that you have not had the same girl as we after she had her last HIV test.
You are both walking high risk individuals. I really hope you see some sense before its too late. No one deserves to die a painful and agonising death, and I wish you all the best, but please please, (and this is written in all sincerity) be more careful!
Thats it from me
good luck and have fun
ST
Swiss Tiger
12-16-03, 05:08
By the way, a previous girlfriend was a nurse, thats why I know about the fluid amounts etc. She brought home some docs for me to read a few years back.
Interestingly, if nurses or doctors get cut in an operating theatre they immediately have an antidote injection within a few hours or so, then have a HIV test and Hep test within a week. They're not allowed to operate until the results come back. Apparently its a common occurance. I was shocked, until it was pointed out to me that someone is bound to be cut when you work with sharp knives and needles all day etc.
Reading this particular thread, has become as interesting for me as reading the life experiences of various members on other threads. Like any hobby, it is enveloping and developing, and research helps keep it fun.
We all get our pleasure in different ways, and view risk with varying degrees of importance. Each to his own, and I won't begin to try and preach on here, but sometimes its easy to forget that there are some eight+ different STDs that one can catch during hetrosexual sexual intercourse, each with varying degrees of pain and embarassement and life changing concequences.
Its your body, your life, you only get one of each!
How much change and embarassment can you handle?
Atlanta Monger
12-16-03, 06:04
Excellent post, dickhead - I'm still laughing two days later, everytime I see it. Just too funny!
Slappy, I'd certainly like to see you shuffle up to Magic Johnson and tell him he just HAD to have been taking it up the wazoo from one of his teammates, since there are no documented cases of F2M HIV transmission. I guess his doctor must have fudged the paperwork, huh?
Swiss: Good points, all. Unfortunately lost on some of this crowd, though.
Play safe, boys - just think about the future return trips you'd otherwise miss!
Is this section only for AIDS, or can we speak about other STDs ?
Has any of you ever get a "moluscum contagium" ? This is a kind of little shits that have been growing on my pubic (not the organs so far) and can become red and itching. According to the doctor I have seen in this Pattaya hosptital, it is not very serious but quite persistent and contagious. So I got that from one of the cuties here... He suggests a curage but I have not yet decided what to do. Ii seems that cream is not very efficient. Any experience of that ? Thanks.
Tough luck, Erik! I've happily avoided moluscum, but I've read that doctors remove them either with a curette or with liquid nitrogen, neither of which sounds exactly pleasant. This looks to be one of the rare ones that men contract more easily than do women.
Dunno about the reliability of their device, but there's a lot of good info on the whole things at http://www.molluscum.com/
Eric,
Here's a brief overview. It is from a urology web site. I think it is relatively straight forward and understandable.
Overview:
Molluscum contagiosum is a viral infection that produces small, painless blisters that may, at first, resemble genital warts. It may cause serious complications in people with immunodeficiency disorders (e.g., AIDS).
Incidence and Prevalence:
Molluscum contagiosum accounts for fewer than 3% of STDs in the United States. It usually occurs in people 20 to 40 years old.
Causes:
The disease is most often spread through direct skin-to-skin contact. Transmission through shared items (e.g., towels, gym equipment) occurs infrequently in adults. Scratching, picking, or breaking the blisters can spread the infection to other areas of the body. Molluscum contagiosum also is spread through sexual contact and commonly affects the pubic area, groin, thighs, buttocks, and external genitalia.
Infected children often spread the disease by scratching the blisters and touching one another; blisters usually appear on the face. Salivary transmission occurs among young children.
Signs and Symptoms:
Blisters, or papules, usually appear about 6 weeks after exposure but may appear within 1 week. They form at the location where the virus entered the body, usually on the genitals, thighs, or lower abdomen. A person with a weakened immune system may experience outbreaks on the face or scalp. The blisters are waxy and raised, with a dimple on top. They can be flesh-colored, white, pink, yellow, or clear. Single papules may appear first, then multiply to form clusters that sometimes resemble genital warts. Itching is common, but pain is rare. A few patients experience red, scaly skin around the blisters.
Individual blisters may resolve on their own in about 2 months, but an outbreak can last 6 months to 3 years.
Diagnosis:
The blisters are distinctive, so diagnosis is typically made by observation. Doctors confirm the diagnosis with a biopsy and microscopic examination of biopsied tissue. Often, a physician removes ("unroofs") the top of a blister and push out its core. Molluscum contagiosum blisters have a characteristic white core and bleed rapidly following unroofing.
Treatment:
Although the virus remains in the body, a healthy person’s immune system usually controls outbreaks and suppresses blister formation. Outbreaks can recur, and they are usually associated with a weakened immune system. There is no specific treatment. Blisters may be removed surgically by cutting, burning, chemical destruction, or freezing with liquid nitrogen. These procedures are done in the office under local anesthetic. Retinoids (e.g., Retin A®), an acne treatment, may be used. Increased sun sensitivity is a common side effect.
Hello Everybody my first time posting in this section.I have a few questions if you'll could help answer I would greatly appreciate it.
1] Can one get aids from a BJ and what are the types pf std's one can get with BBBJ .
2] Does coming in the mouth raise the level of risk in anyway .
3] After sex when one pulls the condom off I'm sure theres some vaginal fluid on the condom.Is there a safe or certain way to pull off the condom to avoid it from maybe touching ones pee hole .
Thanks
On Deck
Hello On Deck,
Here is what I have been taught:
1. The risk is minimal to none for CBJ for both receiver and giver. With BBBJ, the risk increase dramatically for the giver. If you have no lesions, no inflammation, no breakage of skin/mucous membranes on penis, and there is no damage inflicted by the mouth of the giver, then again the risk is minimal to you. OTOH, the giver is potentially playing with her life because she may have lesions in her mouth or other openings caused by brushing, eating food, or whatever else that leave her susceptible to all sorts of STDs.
2. Due to the last sentence above, yes, the risk is raised dramatically to the giver, not the receiver.
3. While holding the tip of the condom, roll the condom off with the other hand until it is loose enough that gentle tugging can release it. Dispose of it, wash your hands carefully (meaning spend some time and rub well under running water with soap), then wash your penis. Then take a pee to flush the urethra.
Hope this helps.
Degano
Thanks very much for the info. I think I am going to have the 3 blisters removed.
What is the best thing to do in case of condom breakage?
Of course, first what one might think about is to take penis out and take a shower. Are there any other things one can do to reduce the consequent risks?
Stalin - Urinate. Always a good idea after a condom break. Peeing in the shower while you wash your penis kills two birds with one stone. Obviously there is a lot less risk involved with a condom breakage for men than there is for women, but if you are really concerned, you could go straight to a doctor/clinic/hospital and get a dose of precautionary antibiotics. Most importantly - don't ever be too 'ashamed' to tell the truth to a doctor. Don't be afraid to say that you were having sex with a girl you don't know too well and that the condom broke. They can't treat you properly if they don't have all the facts.
On Deck - Just to add to Degano's post re: STDs from BBBJ. Like Degano said, the chance of you contracting HIV/AIDS while getting a blowjob is slim to none. However, you can very, VERY easily catch herpes, which is an extremely common INCURABLE virus. Also, if the girl giving the BBBJ has gonorrhoea of the throat - which is highly likely is she makes a habit of giving BBBJs! - you can also contract gonorrhoea.
And as Degano pointed out, BBBJs are much more dangerous for the girl doing the blowing. So when a girl offers you a BBBJ, knowing full well that she's putting herself at great risk of disease, the question you should be asking yourself is ...WHY DOESN'T SHE CARE????
Could it be that she already has numerous nasty infections and couldn't care less about catching another one?
Well, RN, with all due respect, I don't know that all women are aware of the magnitude of the risks, so her offer may have nothing to do with already being typhoid Mary. She may, as is the case with may guys here, simply be balancing risk with reward -- the odds of catching HIV this way are radically lower than through standard intercourse, everything else won't kill you if you get treatment, and there are plenty of guys who either will pay more for BBBJ or who say they won't go unless it's part of the deal.
And I say this as someone who has gotten the clap from BBBJ.
Again I have been caught writing with my "educated western girl from a developed country with a good health system" hat on. I do apologise. That was one of my standard spiels for clients of sex workers who, for the most part, had more than enough sexual health information available to them.
Spank me. I've been bad.
I dunno, RN, I've already got this pretty long list of spankings I owe you. I'm not sure my poor RSI-saddled wrists could hold up should I ever collect... :D
Cupid Stunt
01-06-04, 05:24
What about the flip side? What about going down on a girl which happens to be a staple of repetoire. I do not practice it indiscrimantely but I have been known to engage in it. Funnily enough, I do think that I once caught a cold that way :(, but it was worth it.
But what says you? Going down on a girl? What are the risks? Does the same apply to the giver of bbbj?
I am happy to announce publicly today that I have had succesfully my three moluscum blisters removed by laser, without any pain at all. According to the doctor, there will be no consequences, except if there was any more blister still unvisible, in process of formation, that might appear soon.
I would actually rather undergo this operation 10 times than going once to the dentist. This Pattaya hospital in Soi 4 is perfect. It all happened with a lot of smiles, quiet voices, slow gestures, sweet words, in the best Thai way, nothing in common with what we know in our Western hospitals. While the cute young nurse was cleanning my pubis, she started to chat me up whith the same english level and same type of questions bar girls use, like where I come from, how old I am and wether I am single or not. Then suddenly I was in a bit of a panic, as I felt a hard on coming, while the doctor was to enter the room any second. Enventually the female doctor in her 30s arrived, and they were both busy working on my pubis, and I was feeling nothing at all . They even used an icing system on the skin, so that I don't feel the needdle of the local anesthesy injection. So sweet... At the end, the doctor told me "Ok, tonight you can shower and... everything as usual". I nearly asked her if I could hospital-fine the nurse, but I thought that the 3500 B bill was enough for today.
RN, thank you for your advice concerning with a condom break.
How many days are given to take precautionary antibiotics? I understand that the sooner the better, but when is it too late?
Good for you Erik.
Congrats. You will sleep better and enjoy life a lot more.
RN,
In reference to getting herpes from a BBBJ, this is certainly possible and does happen.
I've read, however, that if the guy washes the area extensively that night with soap and water that the hepres virus can be literally washed away. Is this actually true or is this just wishful thinking?
Cupid Stunt -- yes, pretty much the same things apply, though there are some important differences as well. I don't believe there are any confirmed transmission of HIV in either direction from cunnilingus, and you need to add Hep B, molluscum contagiosum and chlamydia to the list.
Joe Zop,
If your HIV statistic is correct, I would think it's only because it would be difficult to confirm cunnilingus as being a primary culprit in HIV transmission due to the fact it's often only a prelude of intercorse which is considered a confirmed common spreader. It does not nessisarily mean HIV can not be transmitted this way.
I hear saliva helps kill the virus, but think about it, there is much trauma that goes on in your mouth during regular brushing and flossing (sometimes even bleeding), not unlike the normal trauma and microscopic skin abrasions caused by sex that HIV has been proven to infiltrate. Maybe RN can confirm any risk here.
If you must eat a high risk pussy, an HIV test clinic once recommended to me a product called "dental dam" or the use of an equivelent barrier of non-microwavable plastic wrap. I know that might be akward to incorperate into ones routine, but better safe than sorry. I personally found using it unappealing so I just refrain from eating SW pussy altogether and reserve it exclusively for my girlfriend. Lucky her. LOL!
J Burb
On Deck,
I cant advise on the best removal of a condom after sex other than "carefully", but I have discoved that passing ones condom covered stiffy through the dickhole of your underwear prior to intercorse can help protect the base of your penis and groin region from any potentially hazzardous vaginal fluids or skin to skin contact.
J Burb
J Burb, you may well be correct, as HIV is in vaginal fluids, but of course the number of confirmed infections via blowjob is also very low. A dental dam is definitely safer, and it's really not that hard to incorporate into the routine.
I'm not thrilled, however, with your condom removal process. Given that the fluids you're worried about are on the outside and not inside of the condom, your method would seem to allow those fluids to end up touching clothing which would then be touching you, not to mention staying attached to the clothing. IMHO you're better off simply putting one hand on the top of the condom and rolling it down, then washing your hand. I suppose you could put something on your hand as well, since obviously, unless you're wearing a glove theres some risk of infection via a cut on the hand, but the realistic chances are fairly minimal.
GettingTang
01-07-04, 19:41
I used to take my blowjobs bareback only. In fact if she would not perform a BJ with no condom, I moved on. The sensation is just not the same with a condom. You want to know it's your dick she is sucking on and not a piece of rubber! However, I have in the past few months, changed my position on this. I rarely will even accept a BJ unless a condom is used, or she is hell A clean! And yes I know looks alone cannot determine if a provider is packing a disease.
The reason for this is simple. I used to buy into the theory that HIV could basically not be transmitted via oral sex. We have all heard this in the past. Also we have the CDC boasting about "no documented cases with a male receiving a bj" okay, fine. But what they won't tell you are the hundreds and hundreds of guys out there who claim with almost absolute certainty that they contracted HIV from a blowjob.
However, the CDC will not document their cases. Why? Because if a guy goes and and takes 101 blowjobs all without a condom, all from different girls, (for augments sake, lets say hookers) and he has one sexual intercourse, (EVEN WITH A CONDOM) and then he tests positive for HIV, they will not document the case as being contracted by oral! The reason is because in their little chart they use, oral is safer then intercourse even with a condom! Therefore they cannot with absolute 100% remove the intercourse as the possible transmission source!
Keep in mind in surveys done a few years ago 88% of men who seek P4P are doing so for oral sex! Most say they don't get this service at home, so they seek it elsewhere. (something for you hard-ass wives to think about)
Have you ever noticed how easily gums bleed? You also must assume most SW are not practicing the best oral hygiene. In fact most probably have tooth and gum decay. All it takes is for a small amount of blood to be present in their mouths! How the hell the CDC can run around saying receiving oral sex is safe because there has never been a "documented" case, is beyond me! It's criminal in my opinion. There have probably been tens of thousands of men catch HIV from receiving oral sex. Lots of hookers trying to pass it, lots have drug addiction, lots with bleeding gums, but if this guy ever fucked any of them, even with a condom! No documentation!
Best keep it covered for everything boys!
GETTINGTANG~!
You can really only 'early treat' GC/Chlamydia (there is an emergency prophylaxis protocol for HIV but this is not commonly used). Hep, you're fucked. There is an off the shelf recc for Aldara for molluscum (works on Condyloma) It uses your own body's immune system to take care of the virus. I suppose you could prophylax against Herpes but never seen any studies on it.
Emergency prophylaxis of GC/Chlamydia: It is not a scenario one encounters that often, even in an ER setting. Usually patients are seen who have symptoms or who have a partner who has recently tested positive. Still if one came with that scenario, I wouldn't have a prob in treating it. Funny that most patients seeking the morning after pill aren't concerned about STDs as well.
Standard of care for GC or Chlamydia is the following (usually you are treated for both at the same time);
Rocephin (Ceftriaxone) 125 mg IM OR Cipro 500 mg single dose (Cipro not as advised for SE Asia due to resistance). This is to treat the Gonorrhea
and
Azithromycin 1 gm single dose or Doxycycline 100 mg 2 X a day for 7 days . This is to treat the Chlamydia.
another accepted alternative is Azithromycin 2 gm single dose
I don't recommend guys going around dosing themselves with repeated or long-term prophylaxis because they choose not to wear condoms. You are only contributing to the pool of resistance going that route (one of the reasons Asia has resistance to fluoroquinolones -- overtreatment!).
GettingTang,
I think those 'hundreds and hundreds' of guys who claim to have gotten HIV from a blowjob were giving the BJ, not receiving.
Here's my question. Why on earth would you want to bother with getting a BJ with a condom? Much less paying for it? I fail to see how that is any more enjoyable than staying home and masturbating. (Of course for me the same could be said for intercourse with a condom). It seems to me that the 'is it worth even doing at all' factor comes in somewhere here.
Hi RN & JBurg & Degano and all others thanks for the advice .I do realise the risks involved and like u said who knows what she may be having.I just got checked recently and Thank God nothing to worry about on the report .I will now stop playing with my life and get under covers.Thanks once again for your help and advice in the matter.
On Deck
Opebo,
I think your right on the money with your BJ hunch. In a forum such as this, it's far too easy to overlook the "gay male" factor.
As for CCBJ's I only get them as a novelty just to help warm up before tapping some ass. Mainly because her mouth is there and I can. I would never pay for one by itself however.
J Burb
Can you eliminate or greatly reduce your chances of getting hepres from a BBBJ by extensively washing the area with soap and water immediately after the act? I've read something about this in the past. Is this just a theory or is it a scientific fact? It "sounds" reasonable.
Paddy
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.