The number of people infected with herpes two is about 20% in the USA
Given that condoms cant protect against herpes during the periods of symptomatic and asymtomatic outbreaks I am guessing that at least 50 to 60 percent of people in the hobby are infected.
What is your tak
guessing.
Providers and their clients are already included in your population data. Condoms use is already factored into your population data. In fact, you have one data point and no basis whatsoever to "adjust" it, based upon what you have written.
Not sure what you are trying to prove, or why
really shouldn't be taken seriously.
Why don't you try getting some real stats and come back when you have a clue?
But I do present compelling evidence to support my position.
But sometimes I just throw shit out there...and the lemmings don't question it.
Why don't you try getting some real stats and come back when you have a clue?
A bunch of nitwits on a message board for sex workers and clients will tell you whatever makes them feel happy and safe.
So ask your doctor. Or research yourself. Or whatever.
Nearly anything is better than asking here.
Is this your prediction base on your perception of this lifestyle? Getting popcorn and a some bottled water.
On the Savage Love podcast, Dan Savage talks talks about sex in a no-holds-barred way. On episode 195, he has a fun time with Dr. Anna Kaminski from Planned Parenthood talking about a number of sex-related topics, a major one they focus on is herpes (starting in the audio at 12:02). It’s a funny and informative discussion ultimately breaking it down to the fact that herpes is simply “not a big deal.”
that sex workers are generally the safest demographic to engage with sexually. We are far more educated about safer sex than the general public. After all, our livelihoods depend on our remaining healthy. The demographics least safe to engage sexually with are civilians- over 60s and 18-24s.
I'm not siding with the OP here, but arguing BS statistics with other BS statistics is not logical, nor a good way to win a debate.
Now I have seen the statement that sex workers are safer than civilians thrown around a lot here on TER as if it is fact. I have yet to see someone show the actual studies or statistics. Do you have links?
It must be true.
Maybe there's some self-serving study out there.
"Early studies suggest that Canadian female prostitutes are no more likely to be infected with HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases than other women, unless they are also intravenous drug users.[4] (W Darrow. Prostitution, Intravenous Drug Use and HIV-1 in the United States. In M Plant, supra, note 1.) Studies also show that in their sexual relations, sex-trade workers use condoms more consistently than other populations similar in age, race, and sex. [5] Further, with respect to female hookers, the fact that the transmission of HIV from female to male is so difficult would suggest that the sex trade is unlikely to be a source of the spread of HIV/AIDS. Early studies of men who use female prostitutes confirm this; they did not reveal a single case in which a client was infected by a prostitute. [6] It is far more likely, particularly in the current legal context, which excludes sex-trade workers from the protection of the law, that prostitutes are at risk from their clients."
excerpt from:
http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/bastow-aidslaw.htm
It states hookers are no more likely to be infected with HIV than civie women. Sarah is saying that hookers are SAFER than civie women and she added the additional MUCH safer as well.
But again, how could this, or any study "know" how safe a hooker or civie woman is bcd? We just have to take everyone's word, right?
In addition, studies about HIV only are even more problematic as there are other ways to get infected than just unprotected sex.
-- Modified on 11/23/2014 9:51:48 PM
She said...".....sex workers are generally the safest demographic to engage with sexually."
And then perfectstorm asked for studies to back that up...In the article/study I found, it was stated in the excerpt that I copied and pasted in my other post, "1.) Studies also show that in their sexual relations, sex-trade workers use condoms more consistently than other populations similar in age, race, and sex."
Now that we've got that out of the way, I'd like to say that STDs are a very touchy topic and everyone's interpretation of the information that is out there is different, so I am only concerned about what I do, not what someone else does. I can not control what other people do, so I don't waste my time trying to convince myself otherwise.
The point of linking the studies Sarah and I are referring to, are to show you that 1) They exist, and 2) We really are the safer demographic (p4p vs civvie). However, there is no way to know anything all the time, if any of the time, so one can only do what he/she feels is best for HIM/HERself. Point blank period. It's all a game of russian roulette we CHOOSE to play. No one is immune to anything but you can sure as hell be as preventative as you possibly can, within whatever safety boundaries you have set up for yourself. Again, it's a personal choice.
By taking the hookers word for it? Do they bring the researchers to the dates? See how silly this is?
No one knows if hookers are safer than civies. No one could possibly know.
It is in the best interests of p4p girls to have johns think they are very safe. I get it. But they also have a financial incentive to be less safe at times as most here acknowledge some girls trade off protection for more money and great reviews.
But everyone here is just guessing as to who is more or less safe, so let's be honest about that
That's why none of them have kids, I mean none of you actually have children, do you?
The thing about studies regarding hookers is that not only do those studies have to take these women at their word, but these studies also fail to take into account that even if a pro uses protection 100% of the time when working, they also have lives outside of work and that includes BF's, husbands, and booty calls, just like every other woman.
As you just said, everyone here is guessing, and hookers do have some very good reasons for lying about this. Not that they are lying, but they do have a very good financial reason to do so.
I linked to could be extrapolated to the sex worker population here. But even if nobody likes that idea, I know that there was a CDC study done here in the US that comes to similar conclusions. Still trying to find the name of the study in my stuff, but I'll find it.
But even just anecdotally, civilians use condoms far less than sex workers. That has been my experience among my friends, and my pro friends corroborate with anecdotal evidence from their civvie friends. A lot of guys here don't have too much civvie sex, so it's understandable that they can't come to the same conclusions.
Girls have a financial interest in those cases, like in Nevada brothels that are regulated, to stay safe and get tested regularly.
If they fail the test, the money stops.
Girls in our little neck of the woods don't have the same incentive. Yes, they have a medical/well being incentive, but so do civie girls.
You have stated that studies "prove" that p4p girls are safer. Studies rarely prove anything. Many times the best they can do is "suggest."
Studies are only as good as the methodology and even if that methodology is perfect, a follow up study done with a different test group could show otherwise.
And even if they did use condoms more often, they are also likely to have more sex with strangers in a given week thus exposing them to more risk, but I cant even prove that, so what's the point of all this?
There is just simply no way of knowing who is "safer" because we would have to know what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, something we could never "know" for certain.
Many girls here try and "get the word out" on the boards that p4p girls are safer b/c many johns here worry about it. It helps biz to get guys on the fence to believe they have one less thing to worry about.
But I just think giving out anecdotal evidence, and posing it as scientific fact, is wrong and needs to be called out. No offense. lol
some studies are done in unregulated, decriminalized settings where women don't have to be tested if they don't want to be. And in that setting, rates of STIs are even lower (albeit marginally) than in regulated settings with mandatory testing. Mandatory testing has even been found to be a barrier to outreach and public health programs:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=22595
Studies can only "prove" so much- you're right. But I'm still comfortable making my assertion from all the data I have come across. But if one is looking for a guarantee, that's simply impossible, and perhaps they're better off staying home with their hand. 
hands. You can't worry about what others are doing. The only person's actions you have complete control over are your own.
Great post, Akiya!
-- Modified on 11/24/2014 12:23:50 AM
here is a link to an article that discusses this.
http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/monthly-sex-worker-tests-are-ridiculous-health-experts-say-20110530-1fctn.html
I've studied this sort of thing in depth for several years, so I'm comfortable making the assertion. When I have a moment I'll go through my papers and post some studies! 
Now I have seen the statement that sex workers are safer than civilians thrown around a lot here on TER as if it is fact. I have yet to see someone show the actual studies or statistics. Do you have links?
What "study" can determine what someone does in an illegal, unregulated activity, bcd?
And then those numbers, which would be impossible to know for sure, would then have to be compared to the civie girls, again, with no certainty that those numbers would be accurate.
And you need to stop saying "we" as well. You can only speak for yourself. You have no clue how educated or uneducated any other p4p girl is about STD's
have sex with a member of the public"
"Professor of Sexual Health at Melbourne University, Christopher Fairley, said research showed monthly testing was unnecessary and a waste of public health resources because sex workers have much lower rates of STIs than other people.
This was backed by a recent study of patients at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre which showed that of 2896 female sex workers tested for STIs over three years, only 3 per cent were positive.
In contrast, the study found that 41 per cent of 4208 STIs diagnosed at the clinic over the three years were in men having sex with men.
"You are at lower risk of catching an STI if you have sex with a sex worker than if you have sex with a member of the public," Professor Fairley said.
And then those numbers, which would be impossible to know for sure, would then have to be compared to the civie girls, again, with no certainty that those numbers would be accurate.
And you need to stop saying "we" as well. You can only speak for yourself. You have no clue how educated or uneducated any other p4p girl is about STD's.
Now that I have your attention the over 60 crowd, of which I am not a member made it through the 70s & aids infested early 80s. Combine them with active participation in this world & my bet is those survivors are safer than all demographics including sex industry workers esp those who do not test every 30 days. How many of the over 60 and 18-24 population that test every 30 through 90 days are included in your data? My guess is none.
people make, and a potentially fatal one at that: tests are not prophylactics. Someone who is tested is no more likely to be free of STDs than someone who is not tested. The only thing a tested person can be certain of is that at the moment they were tested, their blood did or did not show evidence of an infection. It doesn't mean they do or don't have one, as some STDs can take months to incubate to a point where a test can detect them. You may have one even if your test said you didn't. In the meantime, people who get tested with no positives mistakenly think they are "clean" and can have unprotected sex with others, possibly spreading an infection they have (but which isn't showing up in a test yet).
Keep an eye out for my response to Perfectstorm, because I'll include the research that talks about the growing rates of STDs among senior citizens and a study that talks about 18 to 24s being the most likely demographic to carry STDs.
The point of mutual testing and careful screening is to have the odds in one's favor. I'll take an expensive, often tested, careful and very healthy, well reviewed-experienced lady to any demographic and Akiya's comments support industry ladies with the above qualifications are least risky partners. Maybe focus on throat cancer which may take 15 years to diagnose and is directly related to HPV and oral sex and ask yourself why you perform BBBJ and swallow possibly blood laden sperm?
Condoms can't stop herpes. It does prevent spreading of HIV and other STDs but not herpes. Herpes is spread via skin to skin contact.
HSV or HPV but an experienced sex worker will be more familiar with these two issues than a civilian, and more likely to take extra precautions or refuse to engage.
Many with herpes don't know they have it, so how will you know they have it to decide not to have sex with them? Many don't have symptoms when they are "shedding" so there is no way of knowing unless you see test results of all customers.
who has what at any given time. But we make educated decisions based on experience and knowledge. Most of the ladies here, I'd wager, would refuse to engage with someone who has signs of an STI, or at the very least suggest a safer activity to engage in. Sex workers are more likely to know what signs to look for, and believe me, I look. I don't make it obvious, but I'm fully aware of the state of the penises I choose to engage with. No- I couldn't tell if they have something that is not detectable and that's where we all take calculated risks. But still, safer to engage with a group of people who are more likely to recognize an issue than someone who is not. Right?
It's a risk but worth it in my opinion. You might have A different risk aversion.
Given that condoms cant protect against herpes during the periods of symptomatic and asymtomatic outbreaks I am guessing that at least 50 to 60 percent of people in the hobby are infected.
What is your take
Given that condoms cant protect against herpes during the periods of symptomatic and asymtomatic outbreaks I am guessing that at least 50 to 60 percent of people in the hobby are infected.
What is your take
many with herpes.
Of all the herpes statistics out there, the one statistic about herpes that I do believe is, "Most people who have it don't know they have it.
Of all the herpes statistics out there, the one statistic about herpes that I do believe is, "Most people who have it don't know they have it."
Data is usually used for a hypothesis.
Where is your data to support your ... uh, hypothesis?
I'm guessing you don't have any.
The argument can be made that
a hypothesis is just qualified guess.
How is your "guess" qualified? We don't expect
you to out to out yourself here. A general answer
would suffice i.e. I'm a MD, Or Phd, or I read Reddit daily.
I'm guessing you don't have any.
A hypothesis is more than just a "guess."
It's a testable idea based on observation.
People also often describe hypotheses as “educated guesses.”
You might make an uneducated guess that
or that 50 to 60 percent of people in the hobby
are infected with herpes, but without supporting
evidence it's just bullshit.
The study was done by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Another CDC study says that among females with more than 10 partners in a life time the herpes prevalence was 37.1% and among males it was 19.1%.
Check the tables in article: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5915a3.htm
because it is so prevalent in the US that by their 40's about 75% of Americans have it.
Note: I for one don't and am clean as of last week's results. Since I haven't had sex with anyone other than my hand since then, I guess I'm still clean.
Note: I for one don't and am clean as of last week's results. Since I haven't had sex with anyone other than my hand since then, I guess I'm still clean.
How does that saying go? "There are lies, there are God Damn lies, and then there are statistics. " the numbers only mean something to the people doing the study. Many times government agencies do them to justify their budgets or as "proof" that they need a budget increase. There are many biases and sometimes the numbers get fudged as a means of survival by agencies that have to justify their existence. I look at statistical studies with a great deal of skepticism because many of the studies (especially ones conducted by governmental groups) are unscientific and nothing more than a random sample.
Hey!! I posted that months ago ... no fair!