Safe Sex Information and Advice

Hankmoody. Missed your post. You make great points. At the end of the day addicts are more likely to be possible transmitters of HIV and disease. More so in VA and states that don't have clean needle programs (did not know va did not, so even better info).

I for one would never bare back a BP girl and would never bare back an iv drug user. Regardless if they were from a state with a clean needle program or not.

I've never been an iv drug user, but in my younger days did plenty of stupid things when I was drunk. I can't imagine that every young 20 something girl looking for her next fix is going to tell the guy who is giving that fix to her. "hey buddy, before you fill that needle your about to give me, I need to know if its fresh. You know we live in a state with a clean needle program and while I want my fix, I prefer if that fix comes from a clean needle. ".

Hell, I've barebacked a few babies who were completely clean college girls, after a night of drinks. And in my current station in life, that move couldn't have been more stupid.

Just because a pot / baby lives in a clean needle program state doesn't make her free of disease.

As a result of your post, I will be even more careful with pots / babies in va (since I tend to get them to the FC pretty quickly and don't always have the time to vet whether they might be an iv drug user).

[QUOTE=HankMoody;2755642]The sharing of needles is indeed one of the primary modes of HIV transmission and also Hepatitis. And while you would think that all states would have a needle exchange program, many do not. Virginia, for instance, does not. This in fact does lead to the addicts sharing needles. Because of this, I think you need to rethink your narrow minded comment. The bottom line is that in many states, like Virginia, the addicts can have a difficult time finding clean needles.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=IluvSmellyFish;2758572]Hankmoody. Missed your post. You make great points. At the end of the day addicts are more likely to be possible transmitters of HIV and disease. More so in VA and states that don't have clean needle programs (did not know va did not, so even better info).

I for one would never bare back a BP girl and would never bare back an iv drug user. Regardless if they were from a state with a clean needle program or not.

I've never been an iv drug user, but in my younger days did plenty of stupid things when I was drunk. I can't imagine that every young 20 something girl looking for her next fix is going to tell the guy who is giving that fix to her. "hey buddy, before you fill that needle your about to give me, I need to know if its fresh. You know we live in a state with a clean needle program and while I want my fix, I prefer if that fix comes from a clean needle. ".

Hell, I've barebacked a few babies who were completely clean college girls, after a night of drinks. And in my current station in life, that move couldn't have been more stupid.

Just because a pot / baby lives in a clean needle program state doesn't make her free of disease.

As a result of your post, I will be even more careful with pots / babies in va (since I tend to get them to the FC pretty quickly and don't always have the time to vet whether they might be an iv drug user).[/QUOTE]Now don't get this wrong- [B]I AM NOT ADVOCATING BBFS WITH ANYONE[/B]. If you want to stay safe: Wrap it up!

But the percentage of people in VA that are HIV+ is relatively low. (1) The county with the highest percent of people living with HIV is 1,025 per 100,000 or 1.025%.

[U]Other Facts from VA Dept of health[/U]

Males represent 74% of the total HIV- positive population.
Nearly three-quarters of persons living with HIV disease were ages 40 and older.

In the 20-24 age range the infection rate is 143/100,000 or 0. 143%.
In the 25-29 age range the infection rate is 279/100,000 or 0. 279%.
In fact, for [u]White, non-Hispanic females the infection rate is 38/100,000 or 0. 038%[/u] (about one-third of one-tenth of a percent!)

47% of all living cases of HIV disease were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact (MSM).
Heterosexual contact represented 19% of the living cases.
11% of cases were attributed to injection drug use (IDU).


So take a look at the fact sheet prepared by the VA Dept of Health for how wide spread HIV. In another state? Look up your state's HD statistics.

(1)[URL]https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/DiseasePrevention/Programs/HIV-AIDS/SurveillanceProgram/documents/pdf/HIV%20Epidemiology%20Profile/2015/PLWH%202014%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf[/URL].


These are the facts - what one does with them or how they choose to manage risk is their own business. But one fact remains, condom use is the best method, short of totally monogamous relationships, for avoiding HIV infection.

Your post says all the facts that need to be said.

I think this thread got started when you called out posts that echoed concerns about hiv in iv drug users, by referring to those comments as narrow minded in an era when there are needle Exchange programs.

"But to assume just because a girl is using opiates that she has HIV or presents a risk is narrow-minded thinking."

Those are your words above - not mine. As a general rule, when you call out other posts and refer to them as narrow minded, it will cause certain folks to become defensive.

Other forums on the board may be not be as gentlemanly as the Richmond Sugar thread, but let's keep things civil here.

While others may not subscribe to your philosophies there no reason to denegrate. If you disagree, let others know you disagree, that it is your opinion, and move on. For example, in my humble opinion an 11% rate of hiv transmission is quite high and supports Hank Moody's post. Just as a correction in the market is defined by a 10% drop. 10% isn't a large percentage, but if hiv transmission is at stake, then 11% seems quite high to me.

As an aside, I have read your posts and commend you on the work you have put into the hobby. You appear to use the mid Atlantic as your playground as well, and are clearly well versed in all aspects of the hobby.

All I'm trying to say is that when you call out posts as narrow minded, you might find some blowback, especially here on the Richmond sugar thread where things are civil.


[QUOTE=CephlapodLove;2758695]Now don't get this wrong- [B]I AM NOT ADVOCATING BBFS WITH ANYONE[/B]. If you want to stay safe: Wrap it up!

But the percentage of people in VA that are HIV+ is relatively low. (1) The county with the highest percent of people living with HIV is 1,025 per 100,000 or 1.025%.

[U]Other Facts from VA Dept of health[/U]

Males represent 74% of the total HIV- positive population.
Nearly three-quarters of persons living with HIV disease were ages 40 and older.

In the 20-24 age range the infection rate is 143/100,000 or 0. 143%.
In the 25-29 age range the infection rate is 279/100,000 or 0. 279%.
In fact, for [u]White, non-Hispanic females the infection rate is 38/100,000 or 0. 038%[/u] (about one-third of one-tenth of a percent!)

47% of all living cases of HIV disease were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact (MSM).
Heterosexual contact represented 19% of the living cases.
11% of cases were attributed to injection drug use (IDU).


So take a look at the fact sheet prepared by the VA Dept of Health for how wide spread HIV. In another state? Look up your state's HD statistics.

(1)[URL]https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/DiseasePrevention/Programs/HIV-AIDS/SurveillanceProgram/documents/pdf/HIV%20Epidemiology%20Profile/2015/PLWH%202014%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf[/URL].


These are the facts - what one does with them or how they choose to manage risk is their own business. But one fact remains, condom use is the best method, short of totally monogamous relationships, for avoiding HIV infection.[/QUOTE]

In June of !995 I was able to watch a documentary on AIDS. A prominent internist from a large metropolitan hospital was addressing AIDS transmission issues. He took a tea strainer and was to pour water through it in effort to prove the ineffectiveness of condoms in prohibiting AIDS. However KRAZEE it may seem condoms are not the best way to prevent AIDS; no butt fucking and not sharing needles are. Simple fact of the matter someonse with AIDS wears a rubber and butt fucks you with blood in his cum to get into an abrasion in your ass, then you stand a good chance of catching it. Next you have to ask yourself about all the prime situations that have been available for you to catch the flu or common cold only to escape it. To sum it up, about the only way to steer clear of any virus is three square meals a day along with bathing and changing clothes after hanging out in such ridden situations.

My mind has been made up for a long time about the uselessness of rubbers. At work thought using a rubber for some manometer work would be clever only to make a mess of things as of the damned things not even being air tight. The administrator occasionally has scolded me for bragging about unsafe sex practices. Nevertheless, I can't see any merit in paying for pussie only to not get my full money's worth of pleasure from it.

[QUOTE=PnCool01;2771898]Most of us are very careful who we visit. But this recent article on fox 11 caught my eye.

[URL]http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/82363542-story[/URL]

STDs on the rise across the country, especially in Los Angeles.

POSTED: JAN 25 2016 02:10 PM PST.

UPDATED: JAN 25 2016 02:11 PM PST.

LOS ANGELES (CNS) - Sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise across the nation, but the problem is particularly acute in Los Angeles County, it was reported Monday.

Not only does the county have the most cases, it also has some of the highest rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis in California and the nation, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday morning.

Read the original latimes article here: [URL]http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-std-testing-20160124-story.html[/URL].

Don't know if the links will show up. But just search STD rise los Angeles fox and the report shows in the search. Hope this helps.[/QUOTE]Take a look at the LA casual encounters section of craigslist. Its filled to the brim with gay dudes.

Then look the Las Vegas casual encounters section of craigslist. There is a stark difference in every city except LA.

The gay guys in LA are constantly posting in the W4 M section as females and as "gloryholes".

You can try flagging their but its like playing whack-a-mole.

[QUOTE=PnCool01;2771898]Most of us are very careful who we visit. But this recent article on fox 11 caught my eye.

[URL]http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/82363542-story[/URL]

STDs on the rise across the country, especially in Los Angeles.

POSTED: JAN 25 2016 02:10 PM PST.

UPDATED: JAN 25 2016 02:11 PM PST.

LOS ANGELES (CNS) - Sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise across the nation, but the problem is particularly acute in Los Angeles County, it was reported Monday.

Not only does the county have the most cases, it also has some of the highest rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis in California and the nation, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday morning.

Read the original latimes article here: [URL]http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-std-testing-20160124-story.html[/URL].

Don't know if the links will show up. But just search STD rise los Angeles fox and the report shows in the search. Hope this helps.[/QUOTE]Saw this myself. There are those who swear that they've never caught anything doing BB, while others, myself included, prefer to take a precaution.

Just going bare feels right, whether BJ or FS, but I pick and choose my times based on member reviews of certain providers.

Regular checkups are a must, and while seeing this doesn't necessarily stop me from wanting to get at those who offer CIP, it does raise more awareness to those on either side- whether a monger or provider.

Stay safe and hopefully let it all be fun times and nothing less.

I am always surprised that none of the mainstream newspapers ever quote the bareback beauties section or any of the other monger areas here or elsewhere. It would make for interesting reading if the LA Times interviewed some of the high profile cum dumps like Viet Kim, Lisa/CiCi, Jenny or Annie. Needless to say, I think there would be some negative feedback when the readers understood that single and married men clamor to have bareback sex with women who have each had unprotected relations with 10,000 to 40,000 men.

[QUOTE=Tjinla2001;2772453]I am always surprised that none of the mainstream newspapers ever quote the bareback beauties section or any of the other monger areas here or elsewhere. It would make for interesting reading if the LA Times interviewed some of the high profile cum dumps like Viet Kim, Lisa/CiCi, Jenny or Annie. Needless to say, I think there would be some negative feedback when the readers understood that single and married men clamor to have bareback sex with women who have each had unprotected relations with 10,000 to 40,000 men.[/QUOTE]No one wants to know the truth, they want sensational media coverage. Who wants to read the story of a single mother raising her child while employed in the first ever profession, being a Ho? Add in sex slavery, and gang violence, then you have a good reading investigational report. Some suits and badges can pat each other on the back, and it is win / win.

Thankfully, the crew knows that the sex slavers are just a tiny fraction of the salad mix. Unfortunately, it only takes 1 apple to spoil the whole batch.

Men make an infinite amount of jizz throughout life. Girls got a finite amount and have a set expiration date. Guys will be guys. Guys like the sluts.

What is the revealation of the story?

Read the whole article. Young people under 25 are the culprits as they don't test themselves and spread mayhem. Although not mentioned in the article to be politically correct, infected blacks are the ones that make the numbers go off the charts.
"Some public health experts have blamed the heavy use of online dating apps, arguing that they lead to more casual sex among people 25 and younger, who are the most likely to be infected and also the least inclined to seek testing."
[QUOTE=Byron626;2772085]Saw this myself. There are those who swear that they've never caught anything doing BB, while others, myself included, prefer to take a precaution.

Just going bare feels right, whether BJ or FS, but I pick and choose my times based on member reviews of certain providers.

Regular checkups are a must, and while seeing this doesn't necessarily stop me from wanting to get at those who offer CIP, it does raise more awareness to those on either side- whether a monger or provider.

Stay safe and hopefully let it all be fun times and nothing less.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Member#1050;2775703]Read the whole article. Young people under 25 are the culprits as they don't test themselves and spread mayhem. Although not mentioned in the article to be politically correct, infected blacks are the ones that make the numbers go off the charts.
"Some public health experts have blamed the heavy use of online dating apps, arguing that they lead to more casual sex among people 25 and younger, who are the most likely to be infected and also the least inclined to seek testing."[/QUOTE]Yes, I read it. I also know that it is still a responsibility to the individual. Some choose not to get tested and take a preventative measure, while others won't even do BB anything because if the risks involved. I'm not saying there is a right and wrong way to go about this, but I can only speak for myself and get tested regularly because I know this hobby can become devastating if there is lack of knowledge or for the most part ignorance on the issue.

Online dating apps are only a small portion. Look at this field of hobbyists who seek BB. It's casual, yes, but it's beyond an age issue I think. I've known older patrons who never get tested and think the game is still fun, while some younger than me get tested for their own personal well being. It simply depends on the individual, and I'm not going to judge one person simply because he or she chooses not to get tested. Ignorance is bliss, and it can become an issue, but I can also understand the issue of not wanting to get tested in the first place.

One member gave me the best advice here. "Stay safe". In no way was he simply referring to covered jobs, either.

Eh, I see some discussion of an article in this thread and decided to look into the raw data, as provided by the LA County Dept of Health. Last published report (unless it has a new name? Was YE 2013. I admit, because of slants and biases, I hate looking at someone else's summary of data, so prefer going to the source of the data and looking at it myself. One can do that here:

[URL]http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/dhsp/Reports/HIV/2013AnnualHIVSurveillanceReport.pdf[/URL]

What sticks out in this report is Table 18.

[B]HIV DIAGNOSES AMONG [u]WHITES[/u] BY GENDER, TRANSMISSION CATEGORY, AND YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS, REPORTED BY DECEMBER 31, 2013, LOS ANGELES COUNTY [/B]

Cumulative 1982-2013.

- For Males, 1% of HIV Infection was from Heterosexual contact. 87% from M2 M Sex, 3% IDU and 8% M2 M + IDU.

- For Females, IDU (Injection Drug Users) = 40%, Heterosexual contact = 52%.

Other tables show the rates for other classifications (ethnicities).

What is also interesting is the First Figure [I]{see attached}[/I].

Shows a decline by half of number of HIV cases diagnosed since 2007. A dramatic drop in HIV deaths and only a slow climb in the number of people living with an HIV infection in LA county. (Less than 50,000 people in LAC).

Rates of women living with HIV currently are 106 per 100,000 range or << 0. 1%.

Anyway, that raw data is here and one can read it for them self.

What I can't help but observe, and I have looked at a half dozen of these reports from across the USA.

General level of people living with HIV is in the 1% - 2% range.

Women tend to be order of magnitude lower, so less than 0. 1%.

Take out M2 M sexual contact and contact with IDUs and transmission rates are lower.

All fwiw.

[QUOTE=JaxDog;2691543]Man, I don't know where your getting your information but BBBJ and BBFS are not even close having the same incident rates of stds, BBFS definitely has a greater probability of transmittable stds. If you will review the work done on stds by The Center for Disease Control in Atlanta Ga, what you will find is, stds transmitted by oral sex while not unheard of are very unlikely, stds transmitted by normal sex while more likely to occur then while having oral sex the incident rate is still very low. Catching an std while having oral sex is highly unlikely, catching an std while having regular sex while still unlikely has a much higher occurrence rate than oral sex. Bottom line is while both practices have a transmittance rate, oral sex has a transmission rate that's considerably lower than normal sex. Neither practice is not with out it's dangers but BBBJ enthusiasts have a far better chance of non std occurrence than BBFS participants. I've participated in both practices and I'm not passing judgement in any way just passing along information. Don't believe me? Go read the the info for yourself, it's available for anyone that wants to take the time to find and look at it. JD.[/QUOTE]While this is an old post, I just read it and would like to comment. While you state that the CDC says that BBBJ is safer than BBFS, you are wrong about a key point. All of the CDC info is not supported by any research relevant to what we do, which is bang hookers. I have looked extensively for research that confirms the BBBJ vs BBFS safety comparison, and it doesn't exist, at least for our activity. Any research that has been done only takes into account a random person in the population, not a closed population.

I am not a doctor, but am a scientist in the medical industry.

Here is the reality of my own research. Talk to any street prostitute, and ask her the ratio of BJ's vs FS. I have done this, and it is surprising, it averages like 10 to 1. Then factor into account that there are tons of guys that go BBBJ but do CFS. So the ratio between hookers doing BBBJ to BBFS is much greater, like probably 50 to 1 (or more).

Then look at all the guys on these forums that have gotten a typical STD. Most get them from BBBJ. Basically what I am saying is the average street prostitute's pussy is cleaner than her mouth.

While all that I have posted is not true science in that it isn't based upon a good true scientific study, it is just as valid at the information provided by the CDC and others, because there are no studies that compare BBBJ to BBFS from streetwalkers. None.

For that reason, I maintain that BBBJ is far riskier to catch a common STD than BBFS. However, prevalence of BBFS is rapidly increasing, so I believe BBFS is becoming riskier as time goes on. There is a greater risk of catching HIV with BBFS than BBBJ, this is true, but not true for the most common STD's.

[QUOTE=BusterHymen;2781963] Any research that has been done only takes into account a random person in the population, not a closed population.

I am not a doctor, but am a scientist in the medical industry.

While all that I have posted is not true science in that it isn't based upon a good true scientific study, it is just as valid at the information provided by the CDC and others, because there are no studies that compare BBBJ to BBFS from streetwalkers. None.

For that reason, I maintain that BBBJ is far riskier to catch a common STD than BBFS. However, prevalence of BBFS is rapidly increasing, so I believe BBFS is becoming riskier as time goes on. There is a greater risk of catching HIV with BBFS than BBBJ, this is true, but not true for the most common STD's.[/QUOTE]You raise some good points. First while the rate of people living with an HIV infection runs in the 1% to 2% range generally, that figure holds true for a random person selected randomly from the population. So there would be a 98% chance one would never encounter someone with HIV.

BUT, the population of sex workers is a unique subset of the entire population and one that isn't broken out of the statistics. I suspect the rate of HIV infection in sex workers should be higher. How much? Who knows? And there-in lies the risk.

But looking at the overall statistics one seems "trends. ".

- Women are less likely to be living with HIV. Usually <1%.

- Whites are generally less likely to be living with HIV.

- Non- injection drug users (Non-IDUs) are less likely to be living with HIV.

So if one wants to reduce their risk, it seems like targeting white, non-IDU women would do that.

The rub is that Streetwalkers are more likely IDUs so that would drop them out of the low risk category. Of course, not to say that a high-priced escort could be a high functioning IDU. So looking for signs of that and avoiding IDUs seems prudent.

Now that said. I was tested at a free clinic in the heart of the "gayborhood" in a major metropolitan city. The RN there pointed out to me (to my shock & disbelief) that transmission of HIV to a male through normal vaginal intercourse was low. UNLESS one had cuts, sores. Raw skin or some other opening through the skin that would permit the virus to enter. Toss in anal sex and the risk goes WAY up! She also pointed out that HIV is no longer a death sentence, as with anti-retroviral drugs, HIV was a "manageable chronic condition!

I can't imagine that. As the safest way to protect yourself is wear a condom every time!

[QUOTE=CephlapodLove;2782897]You raise some good points. First while the rate of people living with an HIV infection runs in the 1% to 2% range generally, that figure holds true for a random person selected randomly from the population. So there would be a 98% chance one would never encounter someone with HIV.

BUT, the population of sex workers is a unique subset of the entire population and one that isn't broken out of the statistics. I suspect the rate of HIV infection in sex workers should be higher. How much? Who knows? And there-in lies the risk.

But looking at the overall statistics one seems "trends. ".

- Women are less likely to be living with HIV. Usually <1%.

- Whites are generally less likely to be living with HIV.

- Non- injection drug users (Non-IDUs) are less likely to be living with HIV.

So if one wants to reduce their risk, it seems like targeting white, non-IDU women would do that.

The rub is that Streetwalkers are more likely IDUs so that would drop them out of the low risk category. Of course, not to say that a high-priced escort could be a high functioning IDU. So looking for signs of that and avoiding IDUs seems prudent.

Now that said. I was tested at a free clinic in the heart of the "gayborhood" in a major metropolitan city. The RN there pointed out to me (to my shock & disbelief) that transmission of HIV to a male through normal vaginal intercourse was low. UNLESS one had cuts, sores. Raw skin or some other opening through the skin that would permit the virus to enter. Toss in anal sex and the risk goes WAY up! She also pointed out that HIV is no longer a death sentence, as with anti-retroviral drugs, HIV was a "manageable chronic condition!

I can't imagine that. As the safest way to protect yourself is wear a condom every time![/QUOTE]I would have to add most of not all studies are leaning heavily towards the general population not a mongers life where we're smack dab right in the middle of the riskiest population! Including prostitutes, drug users and such.

I've been BBBJ & BBFS lots lately. I may just have to rethink my game!!

[QUOTE=CephlapodLove;2782897]You raise some good points. First while the rate of people living with an HIV infection runs in the 1% to 2% range generally, that figure holds true for a random person selected randomly from the population. So there would be a 98% chance one would never encounter someone with HIV.

BUT, the population of sex workers is a unique subset of the entire population and one that isn't broken out of the statistics. I suspect the rate of HIV infection in sex workers should be higher. How much? Who knows? And there-in lies the risk.

But looking at the overall statistics one seems "trends. ".

- Women are less likely to be living with HIV. Usually <1%.

- Whites are generally less likely to be living with HIV.

- Non- injection drug users (Non-IDUs) are less likely to be living with HIV.

So if one wants to reduce their risk, it seems like targeting white, non-IDU women would do that.

The rub is that Streetwalkers are more likely IDUs so that would drop them out of the low risk category. Of course, not to say that a high-priced escort could be a high functioning IDU. So looking for signs of that and avoiding IDUs seems prudent.

Now that said. I was tested at a free clinic in the heart of the "gayborhood" in a major metropolitan city. The RN there pointed out to me (to my shock & disbelief) that transmission of HIV to a male through normal vaginal intercourse was low. UNLESS one had cuts, sores. Raw skin or some other opening through the skin that would permit the virus to enter. Toss in anal sex and the risk goes WAY up! She also pointed out that HIV is no longer a death sentence, as with anti-retroviral drugs, HIV was a "manageable chronic condition!

I can't imagine that. As the safest way to protect yourself is wear a condom every time![/QUOTE]Yes, you are entirely correct. I have been almost exclusively banging on average 1-2 girls a week BBFS for the last 3 years. So somewhere between 150-300 girls. I have not contracted any STD during this time. I get tested often, as some STD's do not show symptoms. Once a month I take a dose of Azithromycin just to knock out any latent nasties, mainly chlamydia since it is commonly caught and spread without males knowing they have it. I usually never get BBBJ, because as I have said before, I believe it is more common to contract gonorrhea and chlamydia via mouth than pussy. Also, while I don't wear a condom, I usually have a chemical condom of sorts. I mix up my own antibiotic lube. I start with Astroglide, and mix in a small amount of Chlorhexidine Gluconate into it. The most common brand of Chlorhexidine Gluconate cleanser is Hibiclens, but that stuff does not mix with Astroglide. I use the generic version from CVS, which dissolves readily with the lube. It smells a little florally, and it is a bit soapy, but if you don't put too much of it into the astroglide then the girls won't notice, and it has no problems that I can tell.

This may sound nutty, but it is actually based upon scientific studies. Astroglide by itself was found to inhibit both HSV and HIV. And Chlorhexidine Gluconate has residual bacterial inhibiting power, this is what many doctors use to scrub. At the very least, this replaces or dilutes the volume of pussy juice, so by that alone provides a bit of margin against catching anything.

I do not believe this is fail-safe, and know it is a matter of time that I will catch something, I have been lucky for the most part. I thought by now I would have caught something but I haven't. I would not knowingly bang someone that had HIV. But I will say that I found out that I was banging several girls that were positive, and I didn't catch it from them. (I don't bang them anymore, obviously).