Safe Sex Information and Advice

[VMakel]

2) How is HIV "extremely dangerous?" That is the brain-washing from the 1990's that the government wants everyone to believe so that they can direct and control behavior. The conservatives want to tell you to be only in a monogamous relationship. However, health professions at testing facilities have told me and other health professionals have confirmed that HIV is no longer a death sentence, but now a manageable chronic condition. In fact if one is on anti-retroviral medication viral loads in the body are driven down to the non-detect level. Oh and since everyone has health insurance under ObamaCare, everyone should have access to the medication.

As far as 2: I didn't want to get too far into it, because it's too complicated to get into in just a single bullet point, but I said it was dangerous in that if it is left untreated for long enough you WILL get AIDS, and it WILL be the reason you die. It can also be asymptomatic (or have symptoms of just the flu) for long enough that people may not think to get tested. But, to your credit, on proper medication HIV really isn't a big deal. However that also required taking medication every day (which for some reason people can struggle to do) and the medication IS expensive (and, not to get too political, not everyone has health insurance, and the people who often are at the most risk for this stuff are also the kinds of people who wouldn't have insurance).

But I absolutely believe if you know the facts and take the proper precautions, you can dramatically reduce the risk of even contracting HIV, rubber or not, but again, I'm simply advocating that people do the research and know what to look out for.

3) Vaccination for HPV is NOT available to anyone over the age of 26. Also, last trip to the County HD for STD testing had a long convo on HPV. Usually in a dude the body naturally clears most HPV infection in a couple of years.

For 3: you're right, and if you haven't been vaccinated already, then you're sort of screwed in that respect, and (at least for men), even the "dangerous" strains of HPV aren't that dangerous for us: they're only dangerous because, in women, they cause cervical cancer. But my main point is that even though it's one that you can get even with a rubber, it isn't one of the main ones to be worried about for safety in the "rubber or not" debate.

What makes the issue of "safe sex" so difficult is "beliefs" based on myths based on old science or just plain propaganda. This discussion needs to have "opinions" backed up by credible sources.

I know I'm being pedantic in this post, but I agree with you on the whole. Sex education is terrible in the US, and a large chunk of what people nowadays "understand" is a direct result of fear-based propaganda from the 80's and 90's.

[LogJammin18]

www.myprivatelabs.com. Are a bunch of FUCKING THEIVES


These fuckers stole my money. I sent all the stuff in, paid for it and these bastards never did the work. AVOID AVOID AVOID

[Cephlapod Love]

Finally! Someone who get's it! The only guarantee is abstinence!

What I got out of that blog post was an indictment of lambskin or natural membrane type of condoms. Yes, those membranes might have pores that are small enough to allow the passage of pathogens.

But it does not say that latex or PVC condoms suffer from that problem! So to extend a conclusion to ALL condoms is a fallacy. If indeed there is credible evidence that PVC or Latex condoms allow the passage of pathogens, then none should post a link to that study, report or data.

Like I have said, too many "opinions" out there, and too much "spin" used to club you into submission of monogamy or whatever their agenda is.

[Cephlapod Love]

Now I like BBFS as much as the next guy, but it seems like there's a lot of misinformation flying around, and choosing not to use a condom specifically because you think it doesn't protect you isn't a good idea. Definitely, some infections you can get with or without a condom, but the ones that condoms DO protect against are the ones that you should worry about. The ones that are extremely common / dangerous, mainly chlamydia (extremely common and contagious), gonorrhea (extremely common and contagious), and HIV (extremely dangerous). The infections in that list you can get, sure, but you probably won't with / without a rubber: you can be vaccinated for the dangerous strains of HPV, syphilis is pretty rare now (and you'd see a giant, weeping sore which would be a good indicator to stay away), and when was the last time you heard someone contracting lice / molluscum?

I'm not advocating anyone does or doesn't use a rubber, I just think it's good to know all the facts before you decide.

1) I agree not using a condom because it might not protect you from something. Is crazy talk.

2) How is HIV "extremely dangerous?" That is the brain-washing from the 1990's that the government wants everyone to believe so that they can direct and control behavior. The conservatives want to tell you to be only in a monogamous relationship. However, health professions at testing facilities have told me and other health professionals have confirmed that HIV is no longer a death sentence, but now a manageable chronic condition. In fact if one is on anti-retroviral medication viral loads in the body are driven down to the non-detect level. Oh and since everyone has health insurance under ObamaCare, everyone should have access to the medication.

3) Vaccination for HPV is NOT available to anyone over the age of 26. Also, last trip to the County HD for STD testing had a long convo on HPV. Usually in a dude the body naturally clears most HPV infection in a couple of years.

https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine.html Looks like the risk of HPV being a bad player depends on one's number of sexual partners ( 50) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3231998/.

What makes the issue of "safe sex" so difficult is "beliefs" based on myths based on old science or just plain propaganda. This discussion needs to have "opinions" backed up by credible sources.

[OriginalSin]

FYI. The condom is more to protect the woman than the guy. Trojan doesn't give a $hit about men, LOL, as with American society in general. We have been fed a line of BS for years and I am tired of it.

https://www.stdcheck.com/blog/stds-y...ring-a-condom/

Finally! Someone who get's it! The only guarantee is abstinence!

[VMakel]

FYI. The condom is more to protect the woman than the guy. Trojan doesn't give a $hit about men, LOL, as with American society in general. We have been fed a line of BS for years and I am tired of it.

https://www.stdcheck.com/blog/stds-y...ring-a-condom/

Now I like BBFS as much as the next guy, but it seems like there's a lot of misinformation flying around, and choosing not to use a condom specifically because you think it doesn't protect you isn't a good idea. Definitely, some infections you can get with or without a condom, but the ones that condoms DO protect against are the ones that you should worry about. The ones that are extremely common / dangerous, mainly chlamydia (extremely common and contagious), gonorrhea (extremely common and contagious), and HIV (extremely dangerous). The infections in that list you can get, sure, but you probably won't with / without a rubber: you can be vaccinated for the dangerous strains of HPV, syphilis is pretty rare now (and you'd see a giant, weeping sore which would be a good indicator to stay away), and when was the last time you heard someone contracting lice / molluscum?

I'm not advocating anyone does or doesn't use a rubber, I just think it's good to know all the facts before you decide.

[Harry Plopper]

Welcome to the board. I see that you are a newbie. I look forward to seeing some great reviews here! Keep us posted on your covered fun.

When I expetience GFE I run like hell! I've been offered BBFS too many times, and that to me is a red flag. DFK, not for me. GFE is what I'm trying to avoid. No emotional strings. Reciprocal. Otherwise, you're only fooling yourself. To each their own I guess.

[Harry Plopper]

FYI. The condom is more to protect the woman than the guy. Trojan doesn't give a $hit about men, LOL, as with American society in general. We have been fed a line of BS for years and I am tired of it.

https://www.stdcheck.com/blog/stds-y...ring-a-condom/

I guess I need to revise all my reviews, never have BBFS, too dangerous. I'd agree with BBBJ, DFK and CFS equals GFE for me. You can always PM the reviewer for details.

OO.

[OliverOil]

We should all agree on certain terminology to clarify. In Miami, GFE was BBBJ and CFS, and Ultra GFE was BBBJ and BBFS. I like your suggestions, but I feel like "not quite GFE" is a little negative and will cause white knights to show up, or even girls to defend themselves in the USA review board. "Not quite GFE? You didn't say that when we were LFK!" We need more positive terms.

I guess I need to revise all my reviews, never have BBFS, too dangerous. I'd agree with BBBJ, DFK and CFS equals GFE for me. You can always PM the reviewer for details.

OO.

[Cephlapod Love]

Hey guys,

I'm not looking for any info on AIDs. I have my opinion on that one. I'm wondering how many of you have or have known someone who ended up with a STD wearing a condom. The info I get online is so confusing. It looks like a condom doesn't fully protect against herpes. Is this really true? I don't just mean if it breaks. I'm married and . Obviously, I'm not one to do anything bareback. I guess I can stick with FBSM and handies. Also, a lot of you are into DATY. Is that not also poor safety?

First I do not understand how one could be confused by online information? Only look at credible scientific sources like the USA Gubmint Center for Disease Control (CDC). That is their job and IF they get something wrong online, Tonnes of people are jumping on them to get it corrected. But hey, look at opinion sites and pseudo-scientific sites and then perhaps one could get conflicting information. CDC Detailed Fact Sheet:

https://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stdfa...s-detailed.htm

The reason a condom may not be protective with someone who has herpes is that the lesion or sore or shed site might be outside the vagina, in areas that are contacted by one's own pubic area skin. So unless you wear "lap dance pants" and wear a condom, there are parts of a woman's anatomy that "could" be a viral shed site and thus come in contact with your bare / uncovered skin.

But two things I see in you comment:

1) What is your "opinion" on HIV? The way you said that appears as though one does not believe the facts and has a "belief" of something different. I am NOT criticizing that at all, no everyone is entitled to their own beliefs / opinions. But it suggests a low risk tolerance?

2) You are married and scared to death of taking something home.

Look, decisions on how one plays in this hobby are based on one's personal view of "risk". Be that an irrational fear or an view based on facts. I discussed risk perception here (post #811):

http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/sh...291&viewfull=1#post3645291.

So I won't repeat that discussion.

Here is one person's view of the situation:

1. You have to talk to your potential partners about any diseases they might have, when they were last tested and what those tests included. If that is too uncomfortable, skip the sex. I believe that most people are inherently honest and truthful (drug addicts excepted) and most will tell you if they have something. Yeah, sure one might not know, so only those who were tested for whatever one is concerned about.

2. These items from the CDC fact sheet seem pertinent:

Generally, a person can only get HSV-2 infection during genital contact with someone who has a genital HSV-2 infection.

In persons with asymptomatic HSV-2 infections, genital HSV shedding occurs on 10.2% of days, compared to 20.1% of days among those with symptomatic infections.

3. Transmission rates are important, most people think, "it only takes one time" which is absolutely true, but it does not mean that one and only one, or a FIRST contact is going to mean successful transmission. Look atteh info in this post by FooteRoger where he has collected the transmission rates for various STDs. He also includes where he got the information.

#734 http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/sh...369&viewfull=1#post3179369.

He corrected a small error in the HSV numbers here, #737:

http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/sh...791&viewfull=1#post3180791.

So that shows a transmission rate of 015% or 1/6700 sex acts for Herpes HSV2. Detailed transmission info is tough to find as it is burried deep in Medical studies in scientific journals that are written in medicaleeze. Apparently the transmission rate for oral transmission F2 M BBBJ is LOW but hard to find and not found.

4. Now this should set off purists and make their heads spin, but immediately AFTER sexual contact wash you junk and / or use some other antiseptic. The point is nothing like that is going to 100% prevent infection, but it CAN reduce the risk.

5. What is one's risk tolerance? That is the starting point. If one thinks the consequences of action A are too high then take actions that avoid the consequences. So if ones " life would be destroyed if I were to get an STD" then what level of risk is one willing to take? Some illicit sexual fun on the side that breaks wedding vows vs a destroyed life? Only you can make this evaluation.

Good luck!

[BoulderBoy]

Hey guys,

I'm not looking for any info on AIDs. I have my opinion on that one. I'm wondering how many of you have or have known someone who ended up with a STD wearing a condom. The info I get online is so confusing. It looks like a condom doesn't fully protect against herpes. Is this really true? I don't just mean if it breaks. I'm married and my life would be destroyed if I were to get an STD. Obviously, I'm not one to do anything bareback. I guess I can stick with FBSM and handies. Also, a lot of you are into DATY. Is that not also poor safety?

[Cephlapod Love]

I meant to say that I did not see a category for white male (heterosexual contact).

For me personally, I don't care what is the incident rate of, or how many, heterosexual men are living with an HIV infection because I do not plan on having sex with ANY man! But the number of men who have sex with men (MSM) is shown, but relevant to me only in that it shows that a majority of those living with HIV are MSM.

However, from this chair it would appear that my risk for contracting HIV from a sexual partner IS directly related to the number of women that are living with HIV. Because the statistics presented previously show (on a national basis) how many women of various ethnicities are living with an HIV infection, I can gauge my risk of contracting HIV should I play without the benefit of a condom.

That said, those are CDC numbers on a national basis, for me it makes sense to understand the numbers and ethnicities of women in my area, so I have looked up my state's annual HIV / AIDS incident report. Also, in some of the major metropolitan areas, there are Health Departments that produced their own Annual HIV / AIDS Surveillance Reports, so more site specific information maybe available.

Deciphering one's RISK is a bit tricky- it depends on the number of or percentage of people living with HIV, the rate of transmission of HIV from one person to another, the type of sex one engages in and any protective measures one takes. So in general, the statistics show that the number of white women living with HIV is much less than the number of AA women living with HIV, which is greatly less than the number of MSM living with HIV. So I use those numbers as PART of my evaluation of who to engage as a sexual partner.

All fwiw. Everyone perceives risk differently and evaluates data and information differently. I think it makes sense to look at the facts from credible scientific sources (CDC, State Annual HIV / AIDS Surveillance Report) (which shows how many or the percentages of people, by category, who are living with HIV) as part of my risk evaluation process.

Of course one can pretty much manage their risk to negligible numbers by using a condom with every act of penetrative sex.

[Aegean45]

By the way, I've used https://www.talenttestingservice.com/ in the past and it's pretty easy. There are many draw locations in my area and they overnight the samples down to Southern California. If you're shooting porn, they are one of the labs that you have to go through.

Be safe out there.

[Aegean45]

Not sure what you are asking. The last two bars on the bottom of that bar chart are indeed for white and Hispanic women for heterosexual contact.

If you wish to know the risk in your area it is best to look at you state's annual HIV / AIDS Surveillance report. That should have specific statistics on women and race. Tell me what state that is and I'll take a look for you.

I meant to say that I did not see a category for white male (heterosexual contact).

[Cephlapod Love]

Thanks for the post. Interesting. I didn't see any statistics for white, Hispanic or other heterosexual contact.

Not sure what you are asking. The last two bars on the bottom of that bar chart are indeed for white and Hispanic women for heterosexual contact.

If you wish to know the risk in your area it is best to look at you state's annual HIV / AIDS Surveillance report. That should have specific statistics on women and race. Tell me what state that is and I'll take a look for you.