If the virus can attack healthy genital tissue of a woman I have no doubt that the virus can attack healthy genital tissue of a man as well.

The only problem is researchers don't have too many penis heads laying around to perform tests but the effect is the same.

-- Modified on 12/17/2008 1:08:44 AM

See Related Link.

For those who don't want to read the whole article, the first paragraph is probably the most important. I quote it below.

"In his otherwise excellent review of the AIDS epidemic in the 21st century, Fauci presented no new strategies for preventing the spread of the disease.1 He made no mention of male circumcision, yet there is now compelling epidemiological evidence from over 40 studies which shows that male circumcision provides significant protection against HIV infection; circumcised males are two to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV.2 Furthermore, circumcision also protects against other sexually transmitted infections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea, 3 4  and since people who have a sexually transmitted infection are two to five times more likely to become infected with HIV,5 circumcision may be even more protective. The most dramatic evidence of the protective effect of circumcision comes from a new study of couples in Uganda who had discordant HIV status; in this study the woman was HIV positive and her male partner was not.6 No new infections occurred among any of the 50 circumcised men over 30 months, whereas 40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected during this time. Both groups had been given free access to HIV testing, intensive instruction about preventing infection, and free condoms (which were continuously available), but 89% of the men never used condoms, and condom use did not seem to influence the rate of transmission of HIV. These findings should focus the spotlight of scientific attention onto the foreskin. Why does its removal reduce a man's susceptibility to HIV infection?"

Also see my reply to a post on the Las Vegas Board linking to the same Reuters article. (My post there is completely different from this one.)

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=72849&boardID=3&page=1


-- Modified on 12/17/2008 2:39:57 AM

"researchers don't have too many penis heads laying around"

They should look above their necks.

If you are really concerned about risks in this hobby, try Macramé.  You could accidentally hang yourself on the cordage or choke on a square knot, but internet-statistically-speaking it seems safer.

There.  I just saved everyone's life.  Except for the penis heads that hang themselves or choke.

Why would anyone forfeit their health just to make a direct deposit?!

and let this policy be known here in advance.


That's the way to curb behavior that is unsafe and unfriendly.

Cheers

Gregory

Many people like to become Professor Kingsfield (character from the movie "Paper Chase" about first year students at Harvard Law School) & lecture everyone on what they should/should not do...

People who engage in the hobby (providers & clients alike) are consenting adults & they are capable of making the decisions best for themselves as to what they do.....

People can significantly lower risks by not doing anal, avoiding drugs & sharing needles...And if one hasn't already, get the Hepatitis B vaccine...And always test at the proper facility, whether it's a local medical center AND/or AIM....

Do you have any of the other STDs that are discussed around here?

If not, then how exactly would he be "forfeiting his health" by having BB sex with you?

-- Modified on 12/17/2008 12:06:35 PM

The friggin' crime of the century is that this ESSENTIAL test (reveals the presence of the actual HIV virus, not simply the human antibody response, and will show the activity of the virus 3 times faster than the antibody test, and has a much lower false positive and false negative ratio) is expensive and often hard to obtain thanks to spineless political pandering to absolutist fringes of the political spectrum.... the ass-backwards "logic" (read: collective insanity) is that if the PCR, full name: polymerase chain reaction, test IS widely and inexpensively available, it will encourage promiscuity and social breakdown and rampant homosexuality and wrongheaded theories like evolution and the earth being older than 6000 years.... which is total collective derangement... people desperately need to know their HIV status, with high accuracy, and without shame or judgement, especially people living in poverty or social deprivation where they don't know who to turn to or what to ask for... this is just fucking ridiculous... you should be able walk in to any urban clinic, get an anonymous number, get the DNA test, and get your results back in 5 days and all the counseling you need if you test positive... me ? I have an "arrangement" that costs me $500 a pop to get this done... now how many working girls (or boys) can afford that kind of outlay when they're trying to make the rent ?

she was just commenting on guys who ask for bareback and her comment was not necessarily directed at me.

I am a guy and my post was straight forward and they was no hidden meaning at all. She might have thought I was a provider.

that these persons account for more than half of all new infections."

See Related Link. (Quote from fourth to last paragraph.)

-- Modified on 12/17/2008 12:27:49 PM

Is there a Hell hot enough for those "patriots" who refused to deal with this situation ?

"It is important to note that the new estimate does not represent an actual increase in the annual number of new HIV infections. In fact, CDC’s analysis suggests that the epidemic has been roughly stable since the late 1990s, though the number of new HIV infections remains unacceptably high. These findings underscore the ongoing challenges in confronting this disease and the urgent need to expand access to effective HIV prevention programs. "

It is fucking virus without known treatment at the moment. 100% of muslims are circumcised and you are telling me the AIDS is low in the Muslim population.

Empirical evidence states otherwise. Africa is the most infected and most of the population is muslim, very religious at that.

Can't we spend the money for a vaccine or treatment rather than spending it brain dead studies?

Its a lot more fun to run around with your hair on fire about the latest STD craze.  And then rake one index finger across the other and say, "shame, shame."

Can't we all just have sex with each other on opposite sides of a piece of rubber?  I feel smugger already!

-- Modified on 12/17/2008 3:02:13 PM

The areas  with the worst HIV stats are minority moslem and majority other religions, even Nigeria is a complex mixture of Moslem (Hausa people), Christian Yoruba, and animistic Ibo... would be so nice if people knew what they were talking about....

Her comments were directed at guys that ask for BBFS, not guys pointing out the risks.

See Section 10 (Treatment) of the Related Link.

Also see the map in Section 11 (Epidemiology). Click on the map to enlarge. North Africa and the Middle East, which I think of as the places with high concentrations of Muslims, have a lower Adult Prevalance % (0.1 - 0.5) than the United States (0.5 - 1.0).


-- Modified on 12/17/2008 6:52:48 PM

It is a reminder how risky BBFS can be. Personally anyone who has more than 1 sex partner should always use a condom even with the SO at home. If you are playing on the side you SO might be playing and not taking the precautions you are taking.

-- Modified on 12/17/2008 7:29:01 PM

I agree with you, Gregory.

I don't agree with Moose or anyone else that people are trying to be professors on this one. This is a no-brainer and common sense, and any second grader can figure that one out. If someone chooses to be unsafe, then he/she should at least be honest with providers about it so we can choose not to see him/her.

Believe me, the word is already out! ;0


Hugs,
Ciara

-- Modified on 12/17/2008 8:25:25 PM

You're saying that we shouldn't disagree with someone who wants to put us at further risk in this profession? Huh!

Hugs,
Ciara

I've been doing regular STD testing for a decade now, & I've been testing at AIM every trip to LA the last three years....I mostly see porn star regulars nowadays, & if I were to BB, it's a mutual agreement between 2 adults....I'm not being dishonest with anyone....

What utter hypocrisy...Probably a good portion of your clients are married men, how about let's pass judgement on them....

I've never done any drugs in my life, have never done nor will ever do anal sex, & I don't smoke or drink so don't preach to me about unsafe behavior you arrogant, self-righteous, snob...

has to say on the subject of Condom Effectiveness. (See Related Link for the full fact sheet for Public Health Personal.)

"The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

"For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for STDs, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of STD transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD. Furthermore, condoms lubricated with spermicides are no more effective than other lubricated condoms in protecting against the transmission of HIV and other STDs. In order to achieve the protective effect of condoms, they must be used correctly and consistently. Incorrect use can lead to condom slippage or breakage, thus diminishing their protective effect. Inconsistent use, e.g., failure to use condoms with every act of intercourse, can lead to STD transmission because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse."

A report on The Straight Dope, "Do condoms protect against STDs other than HIV? STD-wise, how risky is oral sex?" ( http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2264/do-condoms-protect-against-stds-other-than-hiv ) says pretty much the same things as the CDC Fact Sheet and is easier to read.

The SD report begins, 'Let's start off with a basic premise, as laid out last year in the New England Journal of Medicine: "[T]he protection that condoms offer against a specific sexually transmitted infection cannot be precisely quantified."'

As one might expect, the best studies have been done on HIV since it is by far the most dangerous STD.

There is a fairly accepted number for risk reduction with HIV using the male latex condom. The CDC article quoted above does not give the number, but the Wikipedia article I cited in an earlier post says the risk reduction is 85%. That is cited and agrees with what I've read in other places.

The problem, which is rarely stated outside the professional journals, is that the risk reduction is 85% EACH TIME YOU USE A CONDOM. Thus if you have sex twice using a (different, of course) condom each time, the risk reduction is 0.85 * 0.85 or approximately 0.72. If you have sex a third time (also using a condom) the total risk reduction is 0.72 * 0.85 or approximately 0.61. You can see where this is going. If you depend on condoms for protection AND your partner is infected, you will ultimately get infected. On average, it will take longer. With a risk reduction of 85%, on average it will take seven times as long to become infected, but IT WILL HAPPEN.

It was stated in an earlier post that a second grader could do the risk analysis. I'm not convinced the average second grader would correctly do this analysis.

A condom is great for a single encounter with a partner of unknown STD status, but I wouldn't depend on them to keep me healthy over an extended period of time.

The only real safety comes from having partners who are not infected with anything. In real life it is impossible to be certain that your partner is disease free. However, you can try to avoid the HIV high-risk groups (men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and anyone who has sex with anyone in the first two groups or with a partner known to be infected). This should be helpful, at least with HIV.

Personally, I feel that a recent STD test gives more protection than a condom, but that is a personal choice based on my own risk tolerance and assessment of the risks.

All I will say here is that I have talked to many providers and hobbyists in my time, and BB is more common than anyone seems to want to admit.

I thought we were donating our money?

And by me saying that I don't agree when you say that we're all trying to be professors on this one was certainly not to bash you. On the contrary, you were politely bashing anyone who felt differently than you. If anyone is being rude, its' you by implying that we're trying to be "know-it-alls."  I think we are trying to protect each other and -- hopefully married men use protection each time they're with someone other than their wives. We all take chances, that part is true, but why go to the extreme going bareback?

But hey! That's certainly your choice, and I'm not asking you to change. I'm merely asking you to be honest with other providers that don't care to go bareback. I guess you let your anger get away from you and misinterpreted what I said.  It's also my choice not to see someone who makes a habit out of it.

We're just giving our opinion on what we feel is safe. I'm also not an arogant snob, but if you think someone with a differing opinion is a snob then you must think a lot of us are snobs. I didn't say anthing about you taking drugs or not getting tested, so I don't know where that is coming from, but I appreciate you telling me that you get tested. I also don't date porn stars so I wouldn't have a clue there, but I know they probably get tested more than anyone on here.

Have a nice day!

Hugs,
Ciara



-- Modified on 12/19/2008 8:22:27 AM