you see that someone has reviewed your ATF.  Curious about her session with this gentleman, you click on and begin to read.  You like this guys style of writing so you decide to read his other reviews. Now, you see that he has reviewed a TS Girl.  Once again, you begin to read the review and you find out that he is *versatile*; both the TS, and the reviewer. So....


A) Doesn't bother you, every man has his fetish no matter what your thoughts are.

B) You feel strange about your ATF seeing a client that is both a catcher and receiver, you feel this activity is a health hazard and hesitate about seeing her again.

Just a thought!

Happens more than you can think of . Some men won't tell that they see TS providers or post reviews ..

So I take it that any woman who speaks Greek as a second language is off the menu too then? She would be just as "risky" as the situation you describe.

If condoms are used, there is no greater risk involved than there is with any other activity in this hobby.

Or, as a final thought, perhaps you simply shouldn't read your ATF's reviews anymore. What you see might bother you.

As much as I don't like profiling, the incidence of HIV in the general population is often estimated as about 1% and for men who have sex with men it is often estimated as about 10%. ( http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-07-02-02 uses these numbers and will tell you more than you probably want to know about safer-sex methods.)

So, given the numbers in the last paragraph a man who has sex with men is more risky for a provider than one who doesn't have sex with men assuming neither has had a recent STD test. (IV drug users who share needles are also regarded as being risker than a male selected at random from the general population.)  

Receptive anal is more risky than receptive vaginal intercourse for transmission of HIV. Estimating risks for different sex acts is somewhat like trying to nail jelly to a tree because almost everyone who has sex has it in a number of different ways. It is very difficult to be certain about which sex act caused a person to become infected when they have engaged in many. However, it is thought that receptive anal is roughly about 5 times as risky as receptive vaginal. (Different numbers can be found in different studies, but this number comes from a study cited in the Related Link.)

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.

Even ignoring the fact that condoms are more likely to break in anal intercourse than in vaginal intercourse it can be seen from these numbers that anal intercourse with a condom is about 5/7 as risky as  BBFS.

Most people of this board regard BBFS as something no sane person would do. However, Greek with a condom has roughly about 70% as much risk for becoming infected with HIV as does BBFS. It is interesting how different attitudes are for these two acts although the risks are about the same.

The risk is zero for either act, of course, if your partner is not infected. Fortunately, HIV has a very low infectivity so even if your partner is infected the risk of infection in a single session is very low.

The risk of a woman becoming infected in a single act of receptive vaginal intercourse with an infected partner and NOT using a (male or female) condom is usually given as about 1 in 500 but the UCSF report on safer sex methods cites studies that indicate the actual infection risk is between 5 and 9 chances in 10,000.

In the absence of your partner having a recent STD test, sex is like Russian Roulette whether or not you use a condom. A condom does improve the odds, of course.

Note 1: Although the Related Link is definitely NOT a peer reviewed journal, the data is taken from one.

Note 2: For information about STDs in general (not just HIV) this seems to be a good source: http://www.epigee.org/health/stds.html .


-- Modified on 11/5/2007 5:23:05 AM

Don't even get me started on people who are transgender-phobic.  That kind of prejudice must be fought until genderism is wiped out.  T-girls are as important as fiber in your diet.

Of course, I am referring only to passable cuties with pussy poles, not some sore infested dude in drag.

If we spent as much time pining over seat belt usage and sugaring up our blood to the point of diabetes, we would live a lot longer so we can fear HIV for many more years.  In between terrorist attacks, I mean.

Your use of petroleum, or other non-renewable resources, in condoms and their "toss on the ground" packaging, is a greater threat at large to our environment.

I'm not a catcher, but I have a great mitt.

"If condoms are used" is the catch phrase.  In all too many TS reveiws, these are not referred to or mentioned.  Since guys do not like to use condoms, I would bet the non-compliance rate during these meetings is greater than during male/female hobby encounters.  So any reviews with any lady you see by reviewers w/ TS reviews makes you take pause for a second...

I have had thoughts about the topic before. I always say, to each his own, but I also admit there are valid concerns, as mathesar has pointed out from a statistical point of view.

Sorry for my response but this topic has been discussed under various guises "ad nauseum". Do a search and you will see. Also look on the reviewers Board.

I understand your pain and frustation but know of no other way than to look at the provider with a big picture view and figure out if you like her that much.

xo Lisa

Excellent question.  Some want to tap dance around it and posture, so let me answer it honestly.  If I see that a provider I want to see has been reviewed by a reviewer who has also reviewed a TS, then I no longer consider seeing her.  If a provider that I've seen is then reviewed by reviewer who has also reviewed a TS, then I no longer will consider repeating.  Yes, I know it's probably likely that I've seen a provider who had seen a gentleman who had seen a TS, but it has not happened to my knowledge.  I really don't care if someone thinks I'm being small-minded about this.  I will not knowingly "play" with a lady who's previously "played with a switchhitter"!  This is my right, and since the question was brought forth, I'll answer it honestly.  FWIW, I know a few providers who require usernames as part of their screening process.  They do this so they can check who their potential client has seen.  And yes, if they see that he's a "switchhitter", they decline to see him.  That is their right, and I applaud them for it.

...they will see you if you don't give them your alias, or your real registered alias as the case may be.  Anyone could give them their alternate alias, the one where you are the white knight 7/24.  

And many hobbyists see ladies they don't review.  A list of one's reviews is partial at best for most hobbyists.

For the sake of arugment, lets say your lady hasn't seen a questionable hobbyist as defined by you.  Just because a switchhitter hasn't directly seen your babe, doesn't mean he hasn't seen another woman that cross pollinated with another a guy that has seen your pure provider.

Keep livin' the dream, blood brother.  As long as nothing as happened to your knowledge, you should be fine with a simple cootie shot.

GEE, all I thought you had to do was to pour some tequila on your cock after sex and everything would be cool.....

Thanks for the post Mathesar, and for the links.   I'm no statistician so I don't quite understand how you can compare the risk of protected anal vs. BBFS, but the info is there for all of us to further educated ourselves.  I've been trying to get an answer to the following question:  what is the risk of an STD via BBBJ?

If only there were a book entitled, "STDs for Dummies"!

As Sinsoftheflesh said, 'Don't read your ATFs reviews'    Ignorance is bliss

reads his ATFs reviews and sees that i have seen her!  will that contaminate his thoughts of her?  Bwahahahaha!  Seriously, this is a hobby BASED on SEX!  Sex - outside of a monogamous relationship is dangerous - condom - BBBJ -Covered BJ - protected anal - unprotected anal - Whatever.... DANGEROUS.... just don't know how to say it any plainer than that....

As far as worry about HIV goes... worry more about the following...
genital herpes (HSV), human papillomavirus virus (HPV), gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, fungal infections, trichomoniasis, hepatitis...

All are more easily transmitted by risky sexual activity - and with the increase in the rate of multidrug resistance - well!   that just increases the opportunity for you to get an untreatable disease...  

but I suspect that you are more worried about loosing business due to entertaining someone who also sees a TS!  I have to tell you, while that may turn some (a limited and finite #) away, most of us realize that we are not in the market for a LTR...  (it could happen, but this is not really a place to look for it to happen).  

However, my question back is - does it bother YOU that one of your gentlemen callers may call on a TS!?  I've never really thought about that before, but I have to say - most of the providers I know have a more open mind... on some things...!

I am covered with "biases" a loaded word.  I do have very specific sexual preferences, so, since I'm paying for it, they are clear.  Yes, a provider who has seen TS's, races other than caucasian, I avoid.  Some will label me a bigot.  Not true, I just go with what works for me and I can afford.  We agree that "risk" is inherent in the hobby, but why push the envelope into statistically more dangerous high risk behavior?  We all know what these are, but, even here, it is politically incorrect to name them.

Only Herradura Añeja works that way.

So you have been around long enough to see a topic discussed a few times, so what. There are many people (myself included) that haven't and do not go back over dozens and dozens of pages to see old discussions that no one is adding anymore input.

As for "look on the reviewers board", you can't get access to that board until you have 10 reviews. Say even at $$ per appointment (thus someone to review) that is 2k. It is going to take a lil while to get up to 2k worth of appointments, so some people can't get into the reviewers board.

If you don't want to read or participate in a discussion, then don't. Just don't tell everyone else to stop and move on because you are bored with it.

Why do you not want to see providers who see non-caucasians?

 No judgements I'm just curious...
-J

Mostly statistical.  Highest STD risk groups, (CDC data) in no particular order:
Male homosexuals.  IV drug users predominantly among black males.  Asians form Laos and Cambodia.  Latinos from central and south America.  Back in the good 'ol days, a dose of clap was curable.  The new shit from all over the world is deadly.  So, if I note a provider entertains these high risk clients, I take a pass.  Like I said, not bigotry, just risk management coupled with what arouses me esthetically.  BTW, Phoenix has an incredible mix of all ethnicities.  I've got a few drop dead gorgeous Latinos on my must see list.  Saw Asians when I was USN Japan, and once a black in Vegas.

Risk management is your reason for seeing providers that see anyone in the "high-risk" pool.  Yet, there are providers that you want to see and that you have seen that either come from those high risk areas or who may have been with others from the "high-risk" pool.  How do you handle the fact that those that you have seen may have had clients or civie BF's from those groups?  Do you really think that all the women that you have been with have seen nothing but straight white males that have never used any IV drugs or been with other women that have exposed themselves to those risks?

Well, to each his/her own, but a few things..

One, as far as high risk groups, wouldn't TS women be considered different from gay men??? Why are these lumped together? Because they're women.. and because there are straight and gay TS, and bi too...

And two, as pointed out, not all reviewers review every provider they see, and some guys don't write reviews at all! Plus, you have no way of knowing about civvie partners. I mean, I understand that you are trying to reduce risk as much as you possibly can, but it's really hit or miss. I mean, there could be a gal who had one reviewer, out of ten total reviewers, who had also reviewed a TS, and another gal who had 100 total reviews, with none of them seeing T-girls. Since the more partners you have total, no matter their race/gender/sexual orientation, is another big risk factor, do you rule out gals with lots of reviews, or do you accept that 1) reviews aren't necessarily a good representation of her demographic, only of her skills and attitude as a provider and 2) known risk reduction methods such as using condoms and getting tested regularly are much more consistent than trying to guess at the history of all her sex partners. Indeed, if you assume that in this community, it is basically the same pool of hobbyists and providers sleeping with each other, everyone could probably be linked to everyone else quite easily.

In fact, it makes a lot more sense to insist on covers for all services ie. CFS and CBJ, and a dental dam for DATY, and ignore a provider's reviews all together, than to try and guess who is the least likely to put you at risk and then go ahead and engage in risky behaviors with them instead. It justs seems so illogical.. anyone care to enlighten me? Are you saying you always do use covers, or that your safe sex practices change with a ladies' perceived risk group? To me sticking with known safe methods makes more sense than guessing.. of course, if you do both, then at least you're being consistent, and I would never begrudge anyone for participating in this hobby in a way that feels safe and appropriate to them. We all have our own lives to live and our own risks to asses. No hard feelings, but these are the thoughts that came to mind upon reading some of the responses.

And also, I am not a doctor nor researcher, but it seems completely ridiculous that the risks of covered anal would be comparable to the risks of BBFS for HIV transmission? Unless the condom breaks (which is rare in vaginal or anal) I don't see how there could be such a huge risk. Yes, I understand that the anus is more porous, so if there were to be bareback ejaculation and/or condom breakage, the risk of transmission would be slightly increased over vaginal.. but otherwise why would there be any difference between protected vaginal sex and protected anal sex? Anyone's guess is as good as mine, or maybe better- anyone know something I don't here?

XoXo,
Marea

-- Modified on 11/5/2007 4:12:48 PM

Not only is the risk significanlty lower with covered greek, it is almost nonexistant with covered  vaginal intercourse or BBBJ.........

The following paragraph from the link in Note2 of my previous post seems to sum up the general situation in regard to STDs as well as it can be summed up in a single paragraph.

--------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------

Remember, I'm not a doctor and I could be wrong, but from reading (some of it in journals) I think the most infectious STD as far as a BBBJ is concerned is gonorrhea. If your partner is infected your chances of getting infected from a single BBBJ are close to 100% and I think this is roughly true going either way although male to female infectivity is a bit higher than the reverse. The good news here is that condoms are thought to be about 95% effective in blocking transmission so if you get a CBJ from an infected partner you have about 1 chance in 20 of becoming infected.

As the quoted paragraph says, your best protection against any STD is abstinence although sex with an uninfected partner is also safe. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to be completely certain that your partner is not infected with any STDs (many STDs have silent forms with no obvious symptoms), but a recent STD test showing no infections greatly reduces the risk.

Someone on this board once said that as far as STDs are concerned when you have sex with someone you are having sex with everyone they ever had sex with. It is an interesting picture even if slightly misleading. However, insofar as it is a valid analogy, if you've had a STD test your partner is only having sex with those people you have had sex with since the test. Again, that isn't quite true -- tests have false negatives -- but it is close enough to indicate the power of STD testing.

In Los Angeles, AIM (http://www.aim-med.org/ ) is a reasonable place to go. I haven't looked at the link to obtain their current prices, but they used to charge (and probably still do) $300 for a test that covered the common STDs including a PCRDNA test for HIV.


-- Modified on 11/5/2007 11:33:06 PM

-- Modified on 11/5/2007 7:30:22 PM

The problem regarding condoms is nobody (as far as I know) knows why they are less perfect in practice than they are in the lab. However studies with discordant couples demonstrate that HIV is transmitted about once every one hundred person years if couples are using condoms and have been taught to use them correctly. This compares with seven transmissions per hundred person years with couples in the same studies who choose not to use condoms.

The weakness in the data is that you can't randomly assign couples to the "use" and "don't use" groups. That would be unethical. Since the couples choose what group they want to be in there may be systematic differences in the two groups that influence the results.

However, the data does demonstrate that HIV transmits more often when condoms are used than one would expect simply from slippage and breakage. This is not too surprising. Things often do not work in the real world the way they work in the lab. Do you remember nonoxynol9? In the lab it kills HIV. In practice it actually facilitates transmission of the virus.

I won't give the link again, but quoting from the UCSF Safer-Sex Methods report, "One recent study estimated the per-act risk of HIV infection from URAI with a partner who is HIV-positive at 0.82% (82 in 10,000)..." In case you have as much trouble with acronyms as I do, URAI stands for Unprotected Receptive Anal Intercourse.

For URVI that number is 5 to 9 in 10,000 (same source). If condoms reduce transmission by a factor of 7 (as the discordant couples studies indicate) then the risk of PRAI becomes about 12 in 10,000 as compared to 5 to 9 for URVI. Using these numbers the risk of covered anal is actually slightly more than for receptive BBFS (URVI).

Yes, it may seem completely ridiculous that the risks of covered anal would be comparable to the risks of BBFS for HIV transmission, but nevertheless it is true. Even if you use the most optimistic estimates of condom effectiveness (95% protection as demonstrated for the oral transmission of gonorrhea) you would still have a PRAI risk of 4 in 10,000 which is only slightly below the 5 to 9 range for BBFS.

You state, "Since the more partners you have total, no matter their race/gender/sexual orientation, is another big risk factor...". Current thinking has changed with the realization that being in a monogamous relationship with a HIV positive partner is far more dangerous than having many partners when the incidence of HIV is low in the population. As the UCSF Safer-Sex Methods report says, "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."

I think you make an excellent point when you say, "Plus, you have no way of knowing about civvie partners." Studies have shown that providers are MUCH more likely to use condoms with their clients than with their civvie partners. Plus, they have repeated sex with their civvie partners. The HIV status of a provider's civvie partner or partners is probably much more important in determining the risk of her becoming HIV positive than who her clients are given that HIV has a very low infectivity, its incidence in the general population is very low, and she sees many of her clients only once.


-- Modified on 11/6/2007 12:58:46 AM

discussions. Equally important is the fact that the HIV epidemic itself is evolving. Even if what we know is true at one instant in time (and there is a huge amount of ignorance on the subject in the general public and often more heat than light on this board where you would expect people to be better informed) what we know (or knew) may not be true a year after we learned it.

I thought that we were in more-or-less a steady state regarding the epidemic (with deaths balancing new infections). In researching for this thread I just discovered the Related Link and found that was true in the early 1990s, but is no longer true. I quote from the Related Link.

------------------------------------
The estimate that the epidemic was in something approximating a steady state in the mid-1990s began to change with the advent of more effective therapy in 1996. A rapid decline of the death rate resulted in an increase in the estimate of persons living with HIV infection. Along with this increase in prevalence in the late 1990s came reports from studies of homosexual men showing increasing proportions of men reporting anal sex without use of a condom.(38-40) Reports of increasing high-risk behavior were followed by reports of increasing HIV incidence in some cities and by an increase in sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual men.(41-43) These reports of increasing risk and increasing HIV infections are not reflected in CDC's estimates of the number of annual infections shown in Table 4. Those estimates from 1998 through 2001 are about 40,000 per year, the same number that was being estimated in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The lack of good national data on infection rates makes it difficult to judge any of these estimates, but they may be too low if there is in fact a significant increase in incidence rates among homosexual men. Similar increases have not been reported for injecting drug users.

In sum, we currently do not have good projections of the future of the epidemic in the U.S. or of the present rate of new infections.
------------------------------------


-- Modified on 11/6/2007 12:36:39 AM