it is not the semen you must worry about but the blood ..not mind that anyone today listens but other than our monthlies no where bleeds more than your mouth ... bbbj are extremely risky ...admittedly daty is less of a risk as hobbyist are not on average with several people a week but we as escorts are ...
escorts brush their teeth before every appt..(atleast we hope)(lol)
we have a tendancy to eat junk food (vending machines chips/popcorn) these foods cut the gums
suction will produce blood as well (as in hickies)
so it is a big risk but I firmly believe we as escorts have the right to choose their are those that for whatever reasons choose not to believe this and continue on with them
I know better therefore I do not ...
Flame away
Here is an issue that comes up again and again, rightfully so (eg., see BBFS thread below). There is no great data source for estimating risk of HIV transmission from oral sex. In most cases of infection, there were other risk factors present.
We should have plenty of anecdotal data from the hobby. If many providers can report doing BBBJs (+/- CIM) for years, this would suggest a low risk. Of course, a series of testimonials would not constitute scientific evidence (sample bias being the biggest limitation). Also, the risk rate would be different in a different population of men.
As for the risk of DATY with escorts -- a sensitive topic, I know -- my sense is the risk is quite low because the HIV infection rate in U.S. escorts is very low, and transmission by oral route is inefficient. If there are very active hobbyists who do DATY and have been HIV-tested, this would be useful anecdotal information to relate to this group.
Finally, has anyone performed oral sex one or multiple times with a partner, and later found out the person was HIV-positive? Did you later test negative?
There is an inherent sample bias in that HIV-positive folks are not likely to post, but I think some success stories from the above situations would be useful to pass along to this group
Interesting issue. I will repeat here what I've said before: I have a higher comfort factor with escorts in this regard than I do with "social acquaintances." Escorts test often and are careful.
Yo! Rufus(clever name BTW)As well intentioned and pertinent to the hobby these STD posts are it's like constantly reminding a pro football player he may tear his knee all to shit some day playing football. I'd like to believe that all the "players" here are wearing their helmets and knee-braces to protect themselves and others while playing as safely as reasonable. This incessant haranguing however over STDs belongs on the Six o'clock news along with the exposé on deadly play ground equipment, deadly garage doors, deadly household appliances, cardigan sweaters of death and on and on and on ad-nauseam.
When and if something REALLY new and important pertaining to STDs including statistics(which can be made to say anything)comes to light I'm sure it will be found here. Until then let us here get about the business of whoremongering and leave the fearmongering to the mass media.
HAEOTS.
that do are in the minority.
get tested regularly? Especially married hobbiests?
Every month or so. The longest I've ever gone without getting tested is 6 weeks.
I regularly wear cardigans. I had no idea I needed to be concerned. This business is so dangerous. What's next? Granny panties?!?
Now I'm freaking out.
xxxooo
Beverly ;-*
Aside from the responses you've gotten above, is that it's ridiculous to expect that anectodal eveidence on an anonymous escort board is going to be able to outdo existing scientific studies.
First of all, it's extremely difficult to get a control group. It takes 6 months after exposure before HIV antibody tests will accurately pick up an infection. That means, in those 6 months, you would need to have someone who did NOTHING risky except DATY with a woman. Guess what, your odds are extremely low you'll find someone like that (much less an entire group of people). Even lesbians often do other activities besides DATY. Some do high-risk activities like shared use of toys in the vagina and anus, fisting, have oral during period (blood transmission), drug use, sex with men, etc.
Any HIV study group will say that theoretically the virus can be passed through mucus & vagina fluid but that is extremely small odds. And as said before, you will not have a perfect control group but failing that, let's look at the closest thing you reasonably have: lesbians. And let me go cite the CDC (again). Here we go: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/Facts/wsw.htm
Bottom line:
"As of December 1998, none of these investigations had confirmed female-to-female HIV transmission, either because other risks were subsequently identified or because, in a few cases, women declined to be interviewed. A separate study of more than 1 million female blood donors found no HIV-infected women whose only risk was sex with women. These findings suggest that female-to-female transmission of HIV is uncommon. However, they do not negate the possibility because it could be masked by other behaviors."
I have several friends who work with HIV/AIDS clinics and there is not a single self-identified lesbian female they've ever encountered who contracted HIV and did NOT have a very high-risk activity such as drug use or sex with men.
I'm quite happy with my odds of DATY and I don't imagine it'd be any different for you men. Too bad I don't think that's enough to keep you guys happy.
Please re-read "A high-risk activity ... is sex with men." I sure hope not. If you mean uncovered, then you are accurate. But with a cover, I don't think so. And, I'm not a doc.
Is a statistically significant higher risk. If you actually read the article, you would see that CDC notes sex with men is considered a high risk activity for a self-identified lesbian.
Go read Mathesar's post on HIV transmission risks: http://webtv.theeroticreview.com/msgBoard/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=145947&boardID=12&page=1
Your example with vaginal sex with cover is 85% better protection than M-F vaginal sex without cover, which isn't bad odds, but that means there are cases where transmission has occurred with cover, at a 15% rate compared to unprotected vaginal sex.
Whereas, with female-to-female transmission, they can't even find a documented case. That would be approximately 0% rate PERIOD, in comparison to any activity you wish to compare it to.
In the case of say anal sex with cover, as Mathesar points out in his post: "Note that the relative risk of receptive anal sex with a condom (which many providers do provide and nobody is upset about) is 100 * 1 == 100 and the relative risk of insertive vaginal sex without a condom (BBFS) is 10 * 20 == 200. Thus, BBFS is only twice as dangerous as receptive anal sex with a condom."
Or in other words, the provider has 50% odds of gaining HIV from protected anal sex with a man compared to having vaginal sex without a cover. Those odds, for a woman, are not so great.
Now there are two reasons why sex with men is always going to be much riskier than anything with women:
1) Semen is proven to be a MUCH better conducive fluid for HIV than either mucus or vaginal fluids. Only blood does it better.
2) Penetration is far more likely to cause tears/cuts in the skin (sometimes not noticeable, but enough to pass the virus) in the anal or vaginal cavity. Then, unlike a dildo, you have semen, precum or possibly blood from the penis entering through these small tears/cuts to the bloodstream of the receiver.
3) Condoms do tear, break or are mis-used so they can lose alot of their effectiveness.
This is why gay men have been so incredibly vulnerable to HIV while gay women have not. I do know of cases personally, unfortunately, where despite condom use the HIV virus was passed between men. I presume this could happen with men & women.
Sucks, but that's reality. Your boy cooties are not safe-sex friendly, m'kay? That said, stick to the condoms with the ladies. It's still 85% more effective than not using them.
-- Modified on 7/8/2005 7:42:16 PM
I have modified my post that you link to so as to compare receptive vaginal with receptive anal. This gives a more accurate indication of the risks from the woman's standpoint.
The provider has 25% odds of gaining HIV from protected anal sex with a man compared to having vaginal sex without a cover (assuming that the authors of the cited report were correct about condoms giving 95% protection).
However, the Haiti report I cited and the NIH report you cited both indicate 85% protection. (This is a 7 to 1 risk reduction, not a 20 to 1 risk reduction.) Using the 85% risk reduction the provider has 71% odds of gaining HIV from protected anal sex with a man compared to having vaginal sex without a cover. As you said, those odds, for a woman, are not so good.
However, relative risk tells only part of the story. The numbers in the NIH report (page 14) are virtually identical with the Haiti report: 6.7 seroconversions per couple per 100 person years for unprotected vaginal sex with an infected partner. In other words, for a person having unprotected sex with a HIV infected partner (the NIH report did not give different odds depending on which partner was infected) the mean time to infection would be about 15 years. Unfortunately, the report does not indicate how often these couples were having sex. A provider certainly has sex more often than these couples and therefore could expect to become infected sooner if all her partners were infected. Since few of her partners should be infected it probably would take much longer (on average) to become infected with HIV via unprotected vaginal intercourse.
Quote: "That means, in those 6 months, you would need to have someone who did NOTHING risky except DATY with a woman. Guess what, your odds are extremely low you'll find someone like that"
I could actually be someone like that.
Can I volunteer?
I have pretty good qualifications:
Never had a blood transfusion.
Never used intravenous drugs (legal or illegal).
Never had vaginal penetration (biological or artificial).
Never had oral sex (giving or receiving).
Never had anal sex (biological or artificial).
Have one tattoo, but got that back in 1990, was the first customer of the day, and the artist used a new needle.
As for being able to limit myself to DATY for six months...considering my past experience or lack thereof... really wouldn't really be a "limit".
All we need now are the women that would be willing to suffer through 6 months of, what I am quite sure would be, substandard DATY from me, and I think we could work this experiment.
So for the advancement of science and to help put the guy's minds at ease, you have a found one willing, and, not to sound too full of myself, well qualified guinea pig.
You would make an excellent candidate. The guy's looking for a positive case though, and methinks you're not likely to give it to him.
But what the hell, it sounds like it'd be alot of fun trying!
Doesn't that mean we need to take you, our virgin specimen and infect you with HIV and then have you eat as much pussy as possible until you drop and wait to see if all the other ladies get infected?
I just don't think you should volunteer for this. I enjoy your company too much.
But I could be wrong, the only thing I remember from science class was getting stabbed with a scissors in the back by Danny Johnson. Apparently I took his chair.
-- Modified on 7/8/2005 1:17:13 PM
it is not the semen you must worry about but the blood ..not mind that anyone today listens but other than our monthlies no where bleeds more than your mouth ... bbbj are extremely risky ...admittedly daty is less of a risk as hobbyist are not on average with several people a week but we as escorts are ...
escorts brush their teeth before every appt..(atleast we hope)(lol)
we have a tendancy to eat junk food (vending machines chips/popcorn) these foods cut the gums
suction will produce blood as well (as in hickies)
so it is a big risk but I firmly believe we as escorts have the right to choose their are those that for whatever reasons choose not to believe this and continue on with them
I know better therefore I do not ...
Flame away
Well I must say that Traci is correct, everything she said makes perfect sense and should make alot of people think of what they are doing before they do it......
I'm not flaming but you are making statements that are not based on fact.
BBBJ is not a high risk for HIV. Your statement is not correct. Show me documentation of any confirmed cases of HIV contracted by BBBJ. There are none.
Suction does not produce blood. If your teeth bleed everytime you brush then you likely have significant gum disease. Likewise, if chips and popcorn cause your gums to bleed then you need to see a dentist.
On the other hand, the possibility of getting herpes, gonorrhea, etc. is significant with oral sex for both partners.
I personally know of one case he was a friend of my fathers .....he died several years ago but you asked for documentation here ya go ..
That seems, though, an accidental event during sex, similar to the condom breaking, unless she was catering to that fetish.
I will admit that studies concerning oral may be quite difficult because it often accompanies other penetrations.
I could give reasons why the mouth would not be a likely place to catch AIDS from. Now from mouth to genitals might be a different story, but studies and estimates cite that as being unlikely.
Unless you are talking about drilling with uncleaned dental tools, which make for an overwhelming amount of bleeding, it's unlikely to be infected from the mouth.
BTW, in the place where AIDS is spreading the fastest Africa, oral sex has never been cited as a factor in the horrendous rates of infection. In cultures where oral sex is much more common and in the culture, the spread of it seems to be low.
And medical experts cite it as a low risk. However, this does depend on what you think a high or low risk really is.
-- Modified on 7/8/2005 12:51:54 PM
-- Modified on 7/8/2005 11:35:13 PM
-- Modified on 7/8/2005 11:33:05 PM
Speaking only for myself ...while I take good care of my teeth ...I have a very real fear of dentists probably due to the fact that mine was a sick perverted man while woman were under the gas he was molesting them ..was I ?? I have no idea I just know he scared the beejeezus out of me ..
and while you might like to think all escorts have perfect hygiene think again ..I owned services for 10 years and frequently had to fire girls for lack of good hygiene ....I do know as over a 100 women worked for me at one time
-- Modified on 7/8/2005 11:46:54 AM
Reliable information on STD transmission comes from NIH sponsored sites...not from Worldnetdaily or geocities websites.
While you have the freedom to make you own choices regarding risk and sexual behavior, oral sex is still risky. It is the minimization of accurate info and increased prevalence of wishful thinking which has led to an alarming increase of HIV infection among straight, white, middleclass Americans. Abstinence-centered sex ed. has reduced the proliferation of sensible condom use, along with the "all or nothing" policy adopted by some hobbyists(refer to recent posts which imply that because condom use is not 100% foolproof...why use them?)
I used to work in harm-reduction education as a volunteer. vulva shields and condoms are a must if you want to ensure maximum protection from disease. Also, don't forget that AIDS is not the only disease that can be transmitted through oral sex...Gonorrhea, Herpes, HPV, etc. are all worth avoiding.
The fact that healthcare workers MUST undergo immediate testing and harm reduction procedures in the case of ANY exposure to blood, or bodily fluids, including contact with externally accessible mucus membranes is prof in the pudding that AIDS is transferrable thru means other than just vaginal and anal intercourse, needl sticks etc.
Before attacking these facts, visit the website for the center for disease control for authorative info...And remember, your decisions regardiong risk management are yours alone...but you have to be willing to accept the very real consequences for any missteps.
Best of luck, hapiness and health.
-- Modified on 7/8/2005 12:41:51 PM
"The fact that healthcare workers MUST undergo immediate testing and harm reduction procedures in the case of ANY exposure to blood, or bodily fluids, including contact with externally accessible mucus membranes is prof in the pudding that AIDS is transferrable thru means other than just vaginal and anal intercourse, needl sticks etc"
----------
Health care workers don't get tested because of possible exposure to HIV. They get tested for a full range of almost ANY blood-borne diseases, but the big fears are HIV and the Hepatits family. It has very little to do with just HIV but with the full range of possible disease exposure.
....of the discussion was HIV, I felt it was appropriate to note, as an HIV tests is certainly part of that procedure, and certainly in cases when the patient is a known carrier or member of a high risk group.
I think we have established that infection by HIV and many other serious diseases is a very real risk with unprotected oral sex. I think risky behavior is as prevalent among non-hobby sexual encounters as within the hobby. So, i do not think it's a strictly adult entertainment issue. I think it is just plain foolish to assume anyone is risk free.
It's a personal choice as to whether we should engage in protected oral or not. I don't think anyone should be pressured to play uncovered though, and I don't think fastidious attention to the preservation of one's health should be cause for criticism.
Much like smoking...to each his own. Just know the facts and make peace with the consequences.
-- Modified on 7/9/2005 12:25:46 AM
If you have unprotected intercourse/anal sex, you are about 100 times as likely to catch AIDS as someone who uses a condom in these acts.
If you use a condom during intercourse/anal, but not oral sex, you are about 100 times as likely to get AIDS as the person who doesn't.
These apply to people with multiple sex partners. It may not be precise, but it gives you some idea.
Again, it depends what you consider "low risk" and "high risk" to be.
-- Modified on 7/9/2005 11:58:40 PM
If you understand how to read an article from a scientific perspective, you will realize that the anecdotal reports are worthless. And many of the so called studies are flawed without adequate controls, etc. Is the risk zero? No, however, it is exceptionally rare. I believe there are only a few documented cases and everything else is suspect for other etiologies. When one considers the frequency of BBBJ, the overall risk becomes exceedingly rare. As I have said before, the greater risk is to contract another STD such as HSV, gonorrhea, etc.
Go read it yourself for God's sake instead of surfing around for random websites. It'll give you all the answers you are looking for. Bottom line on that is there's risk with oral sex but it's alot lower than unprotected vaginal sex and even better than protected anal sex.
And that risk they account for in CDC always includes possible blood transmission. Which, if you read up on it, you'd see has very low transmission rates through mucus.
And please don't say stuff like "it is not the semen you should worry about but the blood." That is utter crap. The 85% rate of greater protection using condoms during vaginal sex isn't about blood, it's about the semen. If you go to Mathesar's post ( http://webtv.theeroticreview.com/msgBoard/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=145947&boardID=12&page=1), you'll see that the odds on receiving fellatio is only 2 with a condom and 40 (20 times that) without a condom. That higher risk is because of the semen, not blood. It is not an "extremely risky" activity when you compare it to insertive vaginal sex without a condom (BBFS) is 10 * 20 = 200 or anal sex with a condom 100 * 1 = 100.
Of course it is always better to be safe and many things are theoretically possible. But you should really be aware of probability and actual known cases, so you know how to act responsibly and not get alarmed about the wrong things.
Short hand: French kissing and DATY is very low risk, CBJ is also very low risk. Vaginal sex with condom is a higher risk, BBBJ is a little higher risk. Anal sex with condom is high risk. Vaginal sex w/out condom is much higher risk. Anal sex w/out a condom is begging for trouble.
Funny enough, biting isn't that bad a risk, even if blood is exposed. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq33.htm.
-- Modified on 7/8/2005 10:12:48 PM
use your judgement, but here's an up to date study from usf. There seems to be plenty of acecdotal information coming from people that is not based on fact.
Thanks, everyone, for the thoughful responses so far. I do think the topic bears repeating, but on the other hand I think we are getting into a retread of the debate regarding estimates of risk. My primary intention was not to provoke this same debate, but to unscientifically survey providers and hobbyists who have had lots of contacts. So far I am not familiar with a definitive case report of HIV transmission via oral sex (I want to look into that Edwards & Carne paper on viral transmission), but I also haven't heard from this group yet an example of repeated BBBJ or DATY (i.e. large numbers) with clean health. I expect there are many such examples among this group.
Other issues, such as estimates of HIV prevalence in different groups, frequency of testing among hobbyists or providers, the extant scientific data, bacterial transmission, ethics, etc. perhaps deserve their own threads or in some cases may have been covered already in numerous discussions.
Lots of smarties here. 
Refreshing as hell.
This provider was told by her county aids tester guy there is a small risk of orally contracting disease....the keys word was "risk", no matter how small, it can happen.
Is one moment of bliss worth the risk? not for me. I don't chose to answer for my male friends I see, it's their life!! Intelligence is the key.
There is one man, we met this way, spend time (from one state to the other)travelling and enjoying what time we can find for each other, and he is the only one I choose to enjoy his full taste!! Once again, intelligence!!