LG I’m writing you for both some insight and some knowledge of the potential consequences of a recent experience. I was with a provider that I had seen four times previously and am on excellent terms with. She went to mount me CG style and to my total surprise did it with out applying a condom. The conversation went something like this. I was so shocked I have trouble remembering the exact details. She said, “I know you don’t like rubbers; just let me know before you cum.” I said, “I have a vasectomy so that should not be a problem.” She said, “I’m clean.” I said, “I don’t think it is a good idea to go on without a rubber in any case.” So she put one on and we had great multi-position sex.
But, what could she have possibly be thinking of? Why did she want to know before I came? Was it risk of pregnancy or was she thinking that having cum insider her would carry heightened risk of disease? I have always thought that there were plenty of nasties to be contracted with just unprotected penetration. I have to say that I saw this as both very high risk and somewhat irresponsible behavior on her part. Hoping that she was clean, still what is the potential for infection from twenty seconds of uncovered penetration? I have never been formally tested, have always previously used protection, have no symptoms otherwise, but how could she be sure about me? What am I to make of all this? It’s the proverbial, if she does this with me, how many other guys does she do this with and are they less responsible than me. As I think about this the more bothered I am about it.
And you are asking me??? phi68psi,
With the risk of practicing some tough love here...you should have nipped the nookie in the bud right there and then!!!!
I have no idea what she was thinking of. But a good thing is to ask anyone who wants to practice unprotected sex is WHY, and ask it before insertion.
Some tough love again: please boys, take responsibility for your actions. Women aren't some wily seductresses and you're not some hapless victims of your own hormones. If you are, you don't belong in the provider-hobbyist game. "Shocked" doesn't qualify. This isn't about a bank robbery and the Stockholm syndrome...this is about two adult individuals claiming responsibility for their own actions. So if she was irresponsible, you were equally irresponsible to go along with the program.
"Hoping that she was clean????" That's what you do in church, or for Santa, or whatever your persuasion may be.
Again, this is not about her, this is about YOU. If someone comes up to you outside your bank and tells you to go along and rob it, would you? I bet you wouldn't!!! Well, this applies here too. You need to take responsibility for your own actions, my dear, and not project your indecision and inability to act upon others.
It is seldom that the Love Goddess unleashes any punitive words upon you menfolk, but this is one of those times. Let this be a lesson to all and sundry: PLEASE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION, LEST YOU SHOULD SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!!!
And to think you PAID for this...hmm....I'd rather buy some shrooms at the next Grateful Dead concert than toy around with BBFS...but hey, that's me.
Old Hippiehead Smokin!
the Love Goddess
It does make it safer, but that is not the same thing as safe.
The following paragraph from the Related Link is probably the best one-paragraph summary that I've seen.
------------------------------
It is important to recognize that sexual contact includes more than just intercourse. Sexual contact includes kissing, oral-genital contact, and the use of sexual "toys," such as vibrators. There really is no such thing as "safe" sex. The only truly safe sex is abstinence. Sex in the context of a monogamous relationship where neither party is infected with a STD is also considered "safe". Most people think that kissing is a safe activity. Unfortunately, syphilis, herpes, and other diseases can be contracted through this apparently harmless act. All other forms of sexual contact also carry some risk. Condoms are commonly thought to protect against STDs. Condoms are useful in helping to prevent certain diseases, such as HIV and gonorrhea. However, they are less effective protecting against herpes, trichomoniasis, and chlamydia. Condoms provide little protection against HPV, the cause of genital warts.
------------------------------
I am not a doctor, but I did work at a research institution with access to journals on STDs. Much (probably most) of the information I've seen is available on-line.
Condoms are not 100% effective even against HIV and gonorrhea.
Studies with discordant couples (one HIV positive and one HIV negative) indicate that condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission by a factor of about 7 (i.e., they are about 86% effective). See http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/1996/haitihiv.htm . Theoretically, unless they slip or break condoms should give nearly perfect protection against HIV. However, this study (and others) indicate they give somewhat less than perfect protection in actual use.
The following paragraph is quoted from the link given above.
------------------------------
The investigators observed a seroconversion rate of 1.0 per 100 person years for couples who always used a condom, and 6.8 per 100 person years for couples who used condoms irregularly or not at all. The seroconversion rates were similar between couples who never used condoms and those who used them irregularly, underscoring the importance of consistent, correct condom use. The female-to-male rate of HIV transmission was 7.6 per 100 person years; the rate of male-to-female transmission was 4.8 per 100 person years.
------------------------------
-- Modified on 12/25/2007 12:42:40 AM
The whole report (see Related Link) is worth reading , but for those who don't have the time, I will quote what I think is a critical summary paragraph.
------------------------------
Early research on selection advised that the choice of a partner was the most important determinant of transmission of HIV during a sexual encounter.(55) Current research has shifted emphasis from an explicit concern with absolute numbers of sexual partners to a model that situates an individual's selection of sexual partners in the context of the population seroprevalence, the likelihood that an individual has been tested for HIV, the likelihood that the test result was accurate, the likelihood of infection through insertive or receptive oral, vaginal, or anal sex, and the degree to which condom use reduces the probability of transmission during these acts. The model shows that individuals can reduce their risk by choosing a partner who has tested HIV negative, choosing a safer-sex act, using a condom, or some combination of these factors. For heterosexuals, whose population prevalence was modeled at 1%, choosing one risk-reduction behavior substantially reduced the absolute risk of HIV infection. However, for men who have sex with men (MSM), whose population prevalence was modeled at 10%, the choice of only one risk reduction behavior did not significantly lower the absolute risk of HIV infection.(56) As these models draw their assumptions from the epidemiology of HIV in developed-country settings, the applicability of their conclusions to high-prevalence heterosexual epidemics in the developing world seems limited. It is therefore important in high-prevalence settings to continue to encourage risk reduction behaviors that include both safer sex practices and HIV testing.
------------------------------
I love your work and admire your passion for the details....keep it up!
-- Deep 'ly lurking as a fan' Heat
PS I'm with you all the way LoveG, and feel your angst phi68psi. Play safe, but unexpected stuff does happen - its what keeps life interesting! Roll with the punches, deal with the cards you are dealt, and smile all the way.
-- DH
One lesson of Mathesar's post is that anyone regularly engaging in the hobby, hobbyist or provider, is at risk and should be tested regularly - I would argue at least twice per year.
Now, I'm almost reluctant to say this, but I will anyway. My impression is that people on these boards are overdramatic about the risk of catching HIV (especially males from females - I believe Mathesar has posted about this before) as well as its fatality. There are now good drugs and the prognosis is much better than it was in the 1980's and early 1990's.
From the link: "Many HIV doctors now believe that provided a person with HIV receives effective anti-HIV treatment before the immune system has severely damaged by the virus; and that a person takes their drugs properly and are able to tolerate them, then they could live a more or less normal life span."
Thus the benefits of frequent testing.
I agree. It is definately something to be aware of and prevented, but the "sky is not falling" here". How many worry about cancer like this. It effects 1 out of every 4 people in America, and many times more deadly.
m-
I do get it. The vehemence of your reply confirms my own concern. But it did happen. You may not accept my explanation but it did happen very fast and she was aboard before I knew it. In a conscious, responsible moment I would have never let this happen. I did have her get off and get covered before we proceeded once I recognized what was happening. So what now? For what was less than twenty seconds of uncovered penetration do I need to get tested and if so is there a potential incubation period that I should wait for. Second, if I see this girl again I will talk to her about this but was this such a crazy thing for her to do that I should think there are other crazy things she does and just not see her again?
Dear phi68psi,
The whole point of this exercise is that you should NOT write to me or ask anyone else what to do. You need to make these decisions for yourself. YOU need to ask yourself if you need to get tested. YOU need to evaluate whether or not you should see this girl, independent of what I or anyone else have to say. YOU need to make these decisions entirely on your own. In some way, that's what existentialism is teaching us, not just in theory, but in plain old real life situations like this one. You entered this situation of your own free will. Now you need to act responsibly, toward yourself, out of your own free will. That's what free will and agency is all about. Otherwise, you'd just be some puppet without any brains at all.
Forget about her doing "crazy" things. Who cares? Take her out of the equation completely. Please. Do not even consider her. She is she and you are you. Engaging in thoughts of what she does/did/will do is just counterproductive and you will never learn anything from this experience.
I am truly loath to model "responsible behavior" in this case, because you're not a child and I'm not your mommy. You are an adult and you know what to do. But...if this were ME - and this means strictly me having a vagina and getting a penis in there of some person I'd never met before, and on top of it, paying him for presumably PROFESSIONAL service - I'd hightail it to a testing center and keep testing for all sorts of things within a 6 month timeframe until complete satisfaction. Some things can be tested for w/in days, others you'll need to wait for some time. There are incredibly sensitive HIV tests that can measure things within weeks, but heck, I'd keep testing until 6 months later. If this were ME - would I ever see the guy again???? OF COURSE NOT!!!!! Why would I want to contaminate my existence with someone irresponsible and pay for it???
I guess the testing expense, the time commitment and the sheer agony in contemplating your "checking out" during a crucial moment in your life ought to be painful enough never to lose your vigilance again. As for finding someone else, TER is full of wonderful women who are true professionals and with whom these things never, ever become an issue.
Egads, keep the big head screwed on permanently, please,
the Love Goddess
Is all this concern and worry any less for BBBJ? Is unprotected sex that much more riskier than BBBJ> I ask because it seems that BBBJ is much more accepted where as unprotected sex immediately gets everyone worked up.
It's a serious question.
Riskier in what way, sammy1070?
You could contract the HIV virus from coital sex easier than through oral sex, that's for sure. But heck, there's chlamydia, although again, genital chlamydia is more common than oral chlamydia. Or, you could get ocular chlamydia! How about that one?! Herpes...hmm..probably equal risk. Syphilis? Chancroid? Thing is, with oral sex, there's a lot of eye-to-genital contact before the mouth hits the spot, so to speak. But with genital-genital, there may not be as much visual inspection. Of course, don't let that one fool ya, because someone who's got the herpes virus and is in a prodromal state and shedding virally, well, you can't see that either with the naked eye.
Acchhh...what to do, what to do? This is a risky game, my friend, and risk is all in the eyes of the beholder. Do you take a taxi on New Year's eve or do you drive, in the hopes that those champagne bubbles have evaporated out of your system? It's all a risk assessment...
Gotta decide on this one individually,
the Love Goddess