While we all agree BB intercourse is bad. Mr Mackey says its bad too, BTW. I was wondering - hypothetically of course - that those of us that claim we have received offers of BB intercourse - would we disclose that info in PMs to other requesting that info or trade such info? I mean in a parallel universe maybe, I figure, but then some of us want to be sure not to patronize people who engage in such terrible activites, so it would be really helpful to know who they are and then we could steer clear of their evil ways. Without the free exchange of info, it is possible to unintentionally engage in safe activity with an unsafe person and that drastically reduces the effectiveness of our condom campaign. Just their evil thoughts alone make my balls itch. But if we all pool together, we could get through these times of darkness. So don't horde your BB penetration intelligence. Lives are in the balance!
She was a legend for it, and had GREAT reviews. She now runs her agency out of Florida of course. I've done BB with 4 providers in 5 years, All were off the clock. There are 2 weel known NY providerss that offer it regularly to virtually all clients. They have stellar reviews. I don't do BB Greek BTW.
I think having sex with opposite sides of a piece of rubber is the way to go. In fact it is not really sex, but more like mutual genital-assisted masturbation.
But the outside of the penis having contact with the inside of the vagina? That's just too sexy, for lack of a better word. People can not handle that, and damn it, we need to consume petrolum products instead anyway. I think BB sends the wrong message to the Middle East.
Here's the link to Staff's reply to this topic yesterday: http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=225749&boardID=12
From Staff's reply:
We did an experiment one time just to prove a point. I bought a prepaid phone. Posted an fake ad in LA(oh no!), had a well established member post a BBFS review, and waited. The day the review went up over 500 calls came in on that phone. It ran out of minutes so I don’t know how many we missed. I think we are doing a better job saving the public by not posting bbfs reviews.
.....that are publicly condemning such unscrupulous practices and want to be informed of who this menace to the hobbying society is so they can stay clear of her, are really doing the opposite. They want to know who she is because they want to be next in line to make an appointment with her.
Spreading the news doesn't contain the problem, it only exacerbates it. Staff's experiment is case in point. The fake bbfs review was posted here, amongst this same community of guys that are condemning such behavior, and they called in droves to make appointments.
Your suggestion is like telling pedophiles where kids hang out to "warn them" to stay away from there.
Besides the fact that you posted under an alias makes your motives a bit suspicious.
BBFS it is for me,
Don't want to think about HIV.
Got so horny I couldn't think,
Next thing you know I had a bareback dink.
Liked the way the warmness made my man-wood feel,
Never knew it really was a part of the deal.
So much passion, oh so hot,
Now I got a pimple on my 9 inch cock.
What to do, who to see,
Should have used a condom, but it's not for me.
Temptation is our master,
Temptation makes us see,
How much we really want it,
How much it's not for free.
Just a Public Service Announcement (set to an awesome song) to always play it safe. Enjoy.
If I am always sure that my client is wearing a condom when he is with me, then how does it affect me if yesterday he saw a provider for BBFS??
If I am concerned about my own health and well being and won't engage in BBFS, then how does it affect me if even all of the providers on TER do?
Many of the "clients" I've been with truly enjoy my company, my erotic massage, my personality, DATY, French, and covered FS and I can not be convinced that they would bring their business else where if they found a provider who does offer uncovered full service.
This whole witch hunt is ridiculous, even the "fake review, public test" thing that staff supposedly pulled off.
If you are a hobbyist and you even suspect that the provider you are seeing may have offered BBFS to the client right before you... hey... I have an idea... make sure that you where your condom.
How does it affect you??? I really don't understand why so many people are up in arms about this ever elusive BBFS.. it's ridiculous.
If I see an ad on CL or somewhere that shows a provider offering it, I think.. oooohhh nasty...
and then I move on with my life because it really doesn't affect me in any way, shape, or form that I can think of.
Sorry, just my opinion.
You would think a provider whose reviews state repeatedly that she gives BBBJ's might not need this whole concept explained to her but well, there it is--lol
This sounds like a job for Hardy. No one lectures others better than he does.
In terms of personal safety, you are absolutely correct. You are maximizing your personal safety regardless of your partners HIV status.
That would be the end of the story if condoms were 100% effective in preventing the transmission of HIV. (What I have to say does not necessarily apply to other STDs.) However, condoms are only 86% effective in preventing the transmission of HIV. Therefore our partners HIV status is of concern.
I have been told by providers that I know that a well known TER reviewed provider has a HIV positive boyfriend who she barebacks. (Since this is only a rumor I will not name names -- not even in a PM. Please don't ask.) If condoms were 100% effective this would not and should not be of concern to anyone else. But condoms are not a perfect shield and we do need to be concerned about the HIV status of our partner or partners.
In the United States less than 1% of the general heterosexual population is thought to be HIV positive. This 1% is not spread evenly through the population. It is concentrated in three groups (1) men who have sex with men, (2) IV drug users who share needles, and (3) anyone (man or woman) who has sex with anyone in the first two groups.
As long as you avoid the three groups mentioned in the last paragraph you are unlikely to encounter a HIV positive partner and even if you do you are very unlikely to become infected from a single encounter even if no condom is used in the encounter. (Remember that HIV has a very low infectivity. The odds are very different for a high infectivity STD such as gonorrhea.)
Your safety comes from the fact that your partners are very unlikely to be infected with HIV. But condom usage is credited as an important factor in keeping the infection rate at or below 1% in the population.
To oversimplify slightly the spread of a disease that has no nonhuman vectors is similar to a chain reaction in a nuclear reactor (or nuclear bomb). Each infected person must infect at least one other person before he or she is cured or dies to keep the disease alive in the population. If the number falls below one the disease dies out of the population. (Or at least it drops to a very low level in the population.) If each infected person infects about two others we have the runaway chain reaction called an epidemic or pandemic.
In the early years of AIDs we did have an epidemic. The number of infected persons was doubling each year. That means that each infected person was infecting (on average) one new person per year. As tragic as this was it could have been much worse. If HIV spread like the flu much of the human race would have been dying before we knew what hit us. It might not have been as bad as The Last Flight of Dr. Ain ( http://mtsu32.mtsu.edu:11072/3050/Stories/Two_by_Tiptree.pdf ) but it would have been pretty bad.
Condoms are credited with helping to reduce the number of new infections to the point where each infected person was infecting less than one other person over the course of the disease. The epidemic was stopped in its tracks and the infection rate in the population dropped to a very low level.
Thus, the general use of condoms protects you by holding HIV in check so that you rarely encounter an infected person.
Your safety depends more on everyone else using condoms than it does on you using them yourself. This is not talked about a lot, but I believe it is generally known to health care professionals in the field of epidemiology.
An analogy we might use is to compare condoms with an ABM system that stops 6 out of 7 incoming missiles. If the system could stop all incoming missiles we wouldn't care who fired what at us. Since the system is not perfect we do care. We are safe as long as no missiles are fired at us or even only an occasional missile as long as most of the fired missiles are duds (reflecting the low infectivity of HIV). If we are faced with a rain of missiles it's "hasta la vista, baby."
From the public health standpoint condoms are to keep the level of HIV down in the population. It does not matter that they give you less than perfect protection if you should have a HIV positive partner. They work just fine as long as you don't personally really need them. But if you have a HIV positive significant other with whom you are having repeated sex it's "hasta la vista, baby." On average it will take you seven times as long to get infected if you are using condoms (as compared to not using them) but you ultimately will get infected whether or not you use them. (The best study I know of – see Related Link – shows a 1% per year infection rate with condoms and a 7% per year infection rate without them.)
-- Modified on 9/22/2007 4:21:05 AM
So, I suppose the idea is, if condoms don't keep us safe... what will? Oh, I know. Pointing the finger at those nasty providers who, rumor has it, offer bareback services because they are not as smart as all of these long winded, statistic weilding posters who talk about the supposed dangers of this lifestyle, yet still engage in it. Ridiculous!!!!
You know what is more of a threat to any community than BBFS providers or seekers? Rumor mongerers, Fear Spreaders, Searching for Division in order to see yourself as superior, throwing out pathetic "statistics" like "I saw four providers and two of them offered BBFS" because you have nothing more to do with your Friday night.
Tell me how the continuation of your idiotic rumor about a provider who bare backs with her HIV bf helps this situation? Tell me what your motivation was in even talking about that. How would any body know if that were true or not? It's pathetic, It's horrible, It's down right stupid to even bring that up and instead of proving your point, it only makes you look like an idiot for being a hobbyist.
As if you have no control over your OWN health and well being.... As if you are some victim in this crazy dramatic mess.. and if you come up with some disease at least you have someone to blame: that nasty provider who barebacked with her HIV positive boyfriend.
Please.... I mean really... Please.... grow up, take some responsibillity for your own choices. No body is twisting anybody's arm to live this lifestyle. No body is forcing anyone on this discussion board to be a hobbyist or a provider and so ..
I Am Responsible for MY Own Health and Well Being. I really am. I AM IN Control of My Own Safety!!! I really am. And I'm not going to point my finger at someone else who may not be practicing their business the way I think they should and blame them for making me feel less safe.
And I'll tell you the truth about rumors. They are not revealing anything about the person spoken about. But they reveal a lot about the person speaking!! If a hobbyist emails or calls me personally and tries to talk to me about how he knows a provider who does bbfs then I will not question the provider ( I don't give a damn about his opinion of her services) but I will question the hobbyist. What are his motives in telling me that?????
And guess what... Pass!! That's a hobbyist I will not see.
Anyway, the truth is, I should have just passed when I saw the title of this thread and the one further down. Next time, I will.
-- Modified on 9/22/2007 6:37:11 AM
-- Modified on 9/22/2007 6:42:17 AM
Disease organisms have a will of their own. I'll illustrate that, but first you are very right about Mathesar spreading that rumor. It was neither useful nor called for. He distracted from the good point he made. However, about the rest of his post, you are simply so wrong.
I can make Mathesar's best point in just one sentence: the fewer people who have AIDS, the fewer people who will then catch it. (I know, no duh, but it's less simple than it sounds, and important). The same is true for any contagious, infectious disease. The effectiveness of condoms pales compared to the effectiveness of a lack of disease in the area. He's also very right that condoms are only mostly effective. It can't compete with a good health environment.
What if this weren't about disease spread by sex, what if it were about diseases spread other ways, through food or water. If food handling and water treatment were generally very poor, would it make any logical sense to say "you're responsible for your own health?" How effective would that be? Really, without some social effort, public cooperation, public health, your responsibility for your own health matters far less. To compare it to participation in the hobby: one could avoid food borne diseases by not eating. It's better to not have to *take* that much responsibility for your own health. A way to totally avoid STD's? Don't have sex.
Condom use is literally the hobby's public health issue. Providers might eventually gain better standing in society, but forget it if the hobby causes a resurgence in HIV. The public will not forgive that. As much as I think it should be treated equally among men and women, it's providers who the public will blame. You think that blame will sting any less than what Mathesar said?
Finally, you don't know guys, not like a man does. Okay, your current clients won't abandon you totally for women who offer BBFS, but you might be surprised at how many reallocate some of you potential revenue to it. One thing about the hobby: it gives guys variety. No reason why any client has to stop seeing you.
Lastly: don't take things so personally. Mathesar is the last guy to blame providers in general for anything. Don't take rumors about somebody in particular and generalize it to yourself and every provider.
-- Modified on 9/22/2007 8:11:03 PM
I actually was able to read your post with out seeing red. And it makes sense to me. Thank-you. I guess I really wasn't seeing where some of the other posters were coming from... but yeah.. I see your point.
Good.. thank-you very much. Feel much better about the posts now. Thank-you. : )
Condoms are not 100% effective in preventing the spread of HIV. However, they lower the transmission rate enough so that the likelyhood of infection is decreased through their use such that the population, as a whole is protected.