General Reports

Just to add a little bit on this of my view. We all know there are risks associated with SW's. No matter what we say we all just have to be careful. I value my life thats why I read this forum. I feel obligated to help the people who have helped me throughout my time on this forum. So I share what I know to help keep you guys as safe as possible.
With all that mine what each person posts here is a symbol that we all need to take "some kind" of precaution no matter what that is.

Happy Hunting..

[QUOTE=SteelThunder]When traveling down any road, whether in my car or in my life, I try not to go too far near the edges.

There are a variety of reputable links, but sadly a ton more "agenda related" sites on the internet. We could all post a variety of views, opinions and theories and a lot of the so-called "truths" about this disease are still being uncovered. Most non-zealot sources will correctly indicate that the person receiving a bbbj has a nearly zero chance of receiving HIV. However, semen doesn't kill the virus, in fact the newest studies indicated that certain proteins found in semen actually may help the disease take hold in people based on the manner in which certain proteins interact. Since I'm not planning on ingesting any semen anytime soon, I'm not too worried about this latest news. The only, very, very minimal risk from a bbbj is from the person performing the act. A freshly open sore or abrasion could allow for transmission of the virus into the blood stream. With that said, there are various theories and conflicting reports about how much HIV is actually contained in semen, but it has been shown to contain it in small amounts from time to time in some samples taken from men (this could be because of trace blood that actually made its way into the semen). I have never heard any reputable journal talk about how vaginal fluids and semen actually kill the virus. While they may not contain much virus (or any at all depending on what you read) I have never heard of them referred to as HIV-slayers.

Other bodily fluids, saliva, sweat and urine are not viable vehicles for the spread of the virus. HIV must find its way into your blood stream in order to infect you. That is the only way for it to infect you. Abrasions, sores, cuts, or the mucous membranes with close association to blood pathways are the only possible ways that this can occur thorugh sexual activity.

One of the main problems with unprotected intercourse is that if you get into the activity (and we all have at some point) and end up a bit "raw", if your partner has HIV, your risks could increase, theoretically. The vagina bleeds every month and also is commonly found to have slight tissue tears, etc...factors that put a woman with higher sexual activity levels at more risk than one without such activity levels. There are a wide variety of factors that have caused the proliferation of HIV in certain parts of the world. How they intermingle and impact each other is pretty complex and very hard to isolate individual factors and say that they either have nothing to do with or everything to do with the spread of the virus. Unfortunately, way too many internet sources make such wild claims.

I have never read any validated reports of men getting HIV through receiving uncovered oral sex. Therefore I'm not going to worry about the bbbj's I receive. I would not knowingly receive one from a girl that had HIV...my luck would have me being a freakish statistically anomaly of some sort--so I'd beg off that one. However, there are definitive cases of HIV that are conclusively linked to unprotected heterosexual intercourse. I don't care if it is most likely because of the blood in the vagina and fresh abrasions on a penis. I choose to sheath it up when I veer off the road into those pink tunnels. Plus, even more importantly, I don't want any unexpected mini-me's being raised by a Jane "SW" Doe.

Best of luck[/QUOTE]

Thanks.

I will try there, actually not far from me as I'm in Pinellas Park.

Did a bit of crusiing last night with directions from this board.

Only thing I saw was a Blonde WSW at 4St & 5 Ave.

Was sitting with a black guy and looked really rough, so didn't partake.

Drove home via Hains, nothing there.

BTW - what happened to Tampa board?

[QUOTE=R Consultant]Well were glad you didnt find anything that great there. I would be a little careful myself in there as a few of those ladies are just a little on the slip side. Sad part is the place is actually packed alot. Im sure they are packing also.

Now for a real deal I would shoot up to Vegas on Gandy Blvd. Its a topless club but if you cant get laid in there you just cant get laid. You can pretty much get whatever you want as the ladies are very very friendly.

Happy Hunting.




QUOTE=Big Monty Dog]Well, got there about 6:00 PM

Greek is definately available but did not partake.

Not my type.

If any of you guys ever get to my stomping grounds up north, don't hesitate to contact me & I will recommend places for you to go to.

All in good fun!![/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R Consultant]Just to add a little bit on this of my view. We all know there are risks associated with SW's. No matter what we say we all just have to be careful. I value my life thats why I read this forum. I feel obligated to help the people who have helped me throughout my time on this forum. So I share what I know to help keep you guys as safe as possible.
With all that mine what each person posts here is a symbol that we all need to take "some kind" of precaution no matter what that is.

Happy Hunting..[/QUOTE]I am more concerned about HPV then HIV. I could only imagine giving my girlfriend something that will give her cancer.

Surfer Out

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]With all due respect, I could say I am an MD with advanced degrees in anything I would like you to believe. However, to be credible in authoritative statements of fact, as you have made here, to people who may never see me or know me, it would be appropriate to support my authoritative stance with citations to the various sources I would be depending on to make those statements, and that's what's lacking here.

So, I once again ask the original question, "Is it worth the risk?" I think that's a question to be asked and answered by each individual. However, to make an informed decision, each individual should have some knowledge to depend on which should come from credible sources, not just a post on a bulletin board that provides no linkage to credible sources.

You would be doing us all a service by providing a link to or the name, publisher, and date of edition of just a couple of the medical journals you refer to that clearly state vaginal fluids kill the virus.

It would also be a service to us all if you can provide a link to or the name, publisher, and date of edition of at least one medical journal that provides a statement that one can have unprotected sex three times a day with an HIV infected woman for a year and be more likely to hit the lottery. Surely there is some empirical data in a journal or study you have read that will support this assertion.

In the absence of such support, what we have is one person's opinion that may or may not be correct. And if that opinion is not correct, and if someone on this site depends on that opinion to make a decision, that person might very well put his own health or life at risk.[/QUOTE]

Okay, after poking around with Google, I will grant you this: Since my college days of studying this stuff, they have added (I suspect at the urging of the government) vaginal fluids and semen to the list of fluids that carry HIV.

But you know what? Everything I'm reading also points out that the concentrations are EXTREMELY LOW in these fluids. Vaginal fluids having the smallest concentrations.

There has been all sorts of talk of transmission through the mucus membranes. But, again, after screaming the scare factors, the fine print points out that very few cases of such are documented.

I stand by my assertion that female to male transmission of HIV is very low, teetering on the edge of impossible.

One thing that hasn't been done is finding a way to include saliva. All research points to saliva being an inhibitor of HIV.

One can also find information that states that the body's mucus membrane is designed to FILTER out germs and viruses. Yet, sometimes, a germ or virus can get through, despite the body's best efforts to keep it out. This will happen with HIV just as it will with measles, chicken pox, flu, etc.

I'm not advocating going out and having unprotected sex with prostitutes. I don't, however, think that it's such a big scare factor as some mongers make themselves believe.

If anything, the protection is for the female partner as a woman is much more likely to end up infected with HIV from a man than a man is from a woman.

As I said, everything I'm reading states the scare factors and then glosses over the truth, quietly mentioning things like that less than a dozen cases of HIV transmission via oral sex are documented and those that are documented aren't well qualified.

Here's a few links since you don't want to trust your old buddy Wazowski. I don't know what good they'll do since you already seem to have drank the Kool Aid and bought the propaganda of fear. Reading between the lines and paying attention after the scare factors are read can be eye-opening.

[url]http://www.thebody.com/content/art40621.html[/url]



[url]http://www.aidspei.com/trans.php[/url]



[url]http://www.acsa.org.au/faq.html[/url]



[url]http://www.sfaf.org/aids101/transmission.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Mike Wazowski]Okay, after poking around with Google, I will grant you this: Since my college days of studying this stuff, they have added (I suspect at the urging of the government) vaginal fluids and semen to the list of fluids that carry HIV...

I stand by my assertion that female to male transmission of HIV is very low, teetering on the edge of impossible...

I'm not advocating going out and having unprotected sex with prostitutes. I don't, however, think that it's such a big scare factor as some mongers make themselves believe...

If anything, the protection is for the female partner as a woman is much more likely to end up infected with HIV from a man than a man is from a woman.

I don't know what good they'll do since you already seem to have drank the Kool Aid and bought the propaganda of fear. Reading between the lines and paying attention after the scare factors are read can be eye-opening.

[url]http://www.thebody.com/content/art40621.html[/url]



[url]http://www.aidspei.com/trans.php[/url]



[url]http://www.acsa.org.au/faq.html[/url]



[url]http://www.sfaf.org/aids101/transmission.html[/url][/QUOTE]

By doing the research that you did and posting the links here, you did far more service for your fellow mongerers than in your first post, number 187. This is one who appreciates the effort on your part. Still, you are missing a very important consideration.

We all look to each other for informative and factual information here. While female to male transmission may be very low, it is not impossible according to the supporting data we've seen here so far. How many of us here have wives? How many of us here have long term girl friends? How many of us here are in a relationship with more than one lady? Is it worth the risk to them?

While you may not have been advocating unprotected sex if you go back and read your post 187, it is posed in such an authoritative way that one could certainly make the argument that you are, even if you aren't. It does appear that you are being critical of a person's decision to be as careful as possible.

As an educated person and as a credentialed person, you should be the type of person who is not satisfied to "read between the lines." If there is a belief that any source is incorrect or misleading, you - and I - should be the type of people who pursue factual information contradicting those sources rather than assuming something is so because it is somehow contained between the lines of a study or publication.

Obviously your citations here have done some good because you have provided factual information that everyone can look at and determine for themselves when to be safe and when not to be safe. As for your Kool Aid remark, I think it's a little beneath a person of your stated knowledge and is presumptious of what I believe and don't believe. One thing I do believe is this. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Is it really worth the risk, not just to me but to others around me, not to be careful? For me the answer is definitely no.

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]By doing the research that you did and posting the links here, you did far more service for your fellow mongerers than in your first post, number 187. This is one who appreciates the effort on your part. Still, you are missing a very important consideration.

We all look to each other for informative and factual information here. While female to male transmission may be very low, it is not impossible according to the supporting data we've seen here so far. How many of us here have wives? How many of us here have long term girl friends? How many of us here are in a relationship with more than one lady? Is it worth the risk to them?

While you may not have been advocating unprotected sex if you go back and read your post 187, it is posed in such an authoritative way that one could certainly make the argument that you are, even if you aren't. It does appear that you are being critical of a person's decision to be as careful as possible.

As an educated person and as a credentialed person, you should be the type of person who is not satisfied to "read between the lines. " If there is a belief that any source is incorrect or misleading, you. And I. Should be the type of people who pursue factual information contradicting those sources rather than assuming something is so because it is somehow contained between the lines of a study or publication.

Obviously your citations here have done some good because you have provided factual information that everyone can look at and determine for themselves when to be safe and when not to be safe. As for your Kool Aid remark, I think it's a little beneath a person of your stated knowledge and is presumptious of what I believe and don't believe. One thing I do believe is this. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Is it really worth the risk, not just to me but to others around me, not to be careful? For me the answer is definitely no. [/QUOTE]As I said, I'm not advocating going out and having unprotected sex with prostitutes.

I do, however, get a bit worked up when people buy into the scare tactics that date back to the Reagan administration. That's when I was doing my graduate work and when the original government study on AIDS came out.

Well, it didn't really come out, it was recalled within a couple of days. Our "family values" president seemed to like how AIDS had ended the sexual revolution. The original report made it pretty clear that hetero sexual AIDS was not going to be a major issue. Could it and would it happen? Yes. In great numbers? No. The majority from male/female sexual interaction? No. The bulk would and. At that point. Could be traced to drug use.

Can I document this? No. Do you really think the government would admit this publicly? How do I know? Because one of the top Sociologists in the world blew a gasket when he found out the report had been recalled from the university library. I won't say who it was because he is very well known and the era would reveal what university he was at and my work with him would lead anyone reading to narrow down my identity to about a dozen possible people. I will, however, Irish, PM you his name if you so desire to look up his credentials.

Around that time the person who was the New York State's equivilent of Surgeon General made an effort to find out the truths about AIDS. That person (I don't recall the gender) was not content to just accept a person's claim that they could have only accquired the virus from heterosexual contact.

The NY physician did further interviews with the state's heterosexual AIDS cases and found that any woman who got the virus was either an IV drug user (majority) or was having sexual relations with a man who was either an IV drug user or admitted to bi-sexual behavior.

The men in New York state who claimed AIDS through heterosexual content were further interviewed. All but one, eventually, admitted to IV drug use (the majority) or bi-sexual behavior.

This New York information was all documented when the doctor did an interview with Rolling Stone.

Since then (the NY doctor was relieved of that position) government agencies have been forbidden to ask any further questions if someone with HIV infection claims that it could only be from heterosexual contact.

As for the condom companies. Well, the pill was putting their sales down the toilet. Now they don't even promote condoms as birth control. Nor do schools teach birth control. Everything is about preventing disease. The condom companies latched onto the AIDS scare and have been making a fortune from an I'll-informed general public.

So, in a nutshell, I don't advocate unprotected sex with prostitutes. I do cringe at people who, in a nomal relationship, think that each and every person they meet might have AIDS.

I don't think that the chances of contracting HIV from female to male are as significant as the public is lead to believe. Can it happen? Yes. Do I hide inside when it rains because people can get hit by lightning? No. Do I refrain from air travel because planes can crash? No. My personal studies lead me to believe that the chance of female to male HIV transmission fall into the above scenarios' statistical neighborhood.

I don't think the virtues of condoms preventing HIV transmission are as good as the condom companies want you to believe. Remember, they don't give any statistics and ALWAYS back-pedal, reminding you that if you, just once, don't use a condom or, just once, use one incorrectly (what ever that means) your chances just shot way up.

I guess that's a long winded way of saying that, for you, yes it is worth the risk of unprotected sex, even if your number comes up and it affects someone else in your life. If that is your choice then it is your right to make that choice. Others may want to be a little more concerned about others in their life and be cautious. Cautious to them may be over cautious to you and that's OK. It is your choice whether or not to be concerned not just about yourself but about others in your life. Mike, I think we've about beat this horse to death. What do you say we just agree to disagree on this and let those who read the forum check out the sources that have been provided in this debate and decide for themselves what is right for them?

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]Cautious to them may be over cautious to you and that's OK. It is your choice whether or not to be concerned not just about yourself but about others in your life.[/QUOTE]I believe you guys are talking past each other (emphasis mine):[QUOTE=Mike Wazowski]So, in a nutshell, [B]I don't advocate unprotected sex with prostitutes[/B]. I do cringe at people who, in a nomal relationship, think that each and every person they meet might have AIDS.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Big Monty Dog]Thanks.

I will try there, actually not far from me as I'm in Pinellas Park.

Did a bit of crusiing last night with directions from this board.

Only thing I saw was a Blonde WSW at 4St & 5 Ave.

Was sitting with a black guy and looked really rough, so didn't partake.

Drove home via Hains, nothing there.

BTW - what happened to Tampa board?[/QUOTE]Big Monty Dog and others new to the area. I would suggest driving the neighborhoods noted here during the day FIRST before cruising at night. That way you can get the "lay of the land" before finding your lay of the day. Some neighborhoods are a bit rougher than others. It is better to see and know what is where and where LEO likes to lurk during the day, than to let the little head makes some fast decisions during the night.

Stay safe.

CB

[blue]Greetings everyone,

Per the Forum's Posting Guidelines, Safe Sex Complaints may only be posted in the [url="http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=268"]Safe Sex thread[/url].

Members may also use the Forum's PM system to voice their Safe Complaints towards individual Forum Members.[/blue]

[blue]Here's the full text of the reasoning behind this policy:[/blue]

[quote][blue]Effective immediately, Forum Members wishing to criticize other Members for not following what they consider to be safe sex procedures may do so only in the [url="http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=268"]Safe Sex Thread[/url]. Members may not comment upon, criticize or confront other members on this subject in the general discussion threads. Any such "safe sex complaints" posted in the general discussion threads will be deleted without comment. However...

In addition, Members may not repeatedly post or otherwise taunt other Members regarding their refusal to follow safe sex procedures. Specifically, references to having sex without a condom may be made only by incidental reference and shall not be the focus of any report. Such "safe sex taunting" reports will be deleted without comment.

If you want to criticize another member for not following what you consider to be safe sex practices, then send him a PM.

It does no good to criticize members for not following what other members may consider to be safe sex practices for the following reasons:

1. It's a disincentive for members to contribute.
2. It never serves to change any one's behavior.
3. It almost always leads to arguments.
4. It provides a "cover" for Serial Antagonists to provoke other members.

To address the usual arguments:

1. If a guy wants to engage in sex without using a condom, that's his risk and his business.

2. If a girl wants to engage in sex without using a condom, that's her risk and her business.

3. If [u]YOU[/u] want to protect yourself from either or both of the aforementioned parties, then [u]YOU[/u] should use a condom for sex all the time and thus [u]YOU[/u] will be protected from the allegedly unsafe sex practices of the other parties.[/blue][/quote][blue]Thanks,

Jackson[/blue]

[QUOTE=Clinton Bush]Big Monty Dog and others new to the area. I would suggest driving the neighborhoods noted here during the day FIRST before cruising at night. That way you can get the "lay of the land" before finding your lay of the day. Some neighborhoods are a bit rougher than others. It is better to see and know what is where and where LEO likes to lurk during the day, than to let the little head makes some fast decisions during the night.

Stay safe.

CB[/QUOTE]Thanks for the advise.

Went downtown today approx 1:00 PM and found Robin at 4th St & 7th Ave.

Felt safe and no hassles

Review in 4th Street Streetwalkers board.

Thanks again

Any of you guys know Cheesecake the WSW. Shes on CWConfessions. I remember her a long time ago but I forget who she is and so forth. I thought she was LE back in the day but I see now she wasnt.

Any info fire away when you have time.

Happy Hunting..

[QUOTE=R Consultant]Any of you guys know Cheesecake the WSW. Shes on CWConfessions. I remember her a long time ago but I forget who she is and so forth. I thought she was LE back in the day but I see now she wasnt.

Any info fire away when you have time.

Happy Hunting..[/QUOTE]I remember her from the early 90's. I picked her up at the truckstop in Lakeland/I-4, I think her name was Lilly? If I remember correctly she have a great BJ.

Surfer Out

After corresponding with another member here I have a few concerns and a few questions maybe someone can answer. How do you know what these letters are after a charge say like

796.08(5)/F--- PROSTITUTION (HIV POSITIVE)
--------------
796.07(2)(E)/M---VOP PROSTITUTION

Remember just the letters after the 08 & 07 is what Im curious to know what they mean.
----------

I have now learned that 796.08 is that we all should stay clear of any woman arrested for this as HIV is very likely. Just for your own sake of not wanting to catch anything unwanted.

If anyone knows that they mean please let me know either by PM or on the board as I think its very important we share this info.

R, did the numbers and letters come off the charge sheet that was posted online? I believe the F means felony and the M means misdemeanor.