I recently heard that some agency girls approached the owner about firing one of the newer girls who had admitted (during some girl talk) to having unprotected intercourse occasionally with some of the regulars.

The other girls were apppalled that anyone would be so careless. They felt the new girl was going to be nothing but trouble and she should be fired.

The new girl is cute, young and popular--undoubtedly there is some professional jealousy involved as well.

The owners said they would have an educational talk with the girl, but they were not going to fire her.

They said an agency owner can not be the "bedroom police."
They also felt it was a two-way street--the hobbyist should take equal responsibility for his actions and he should insist on protection if the girl is lax. If he doesn't, and he develops an STD, then he really has no one to blame.

Any thoughts?

If that is what she wants to do..so be it!!!

If she is smart..she would go solo anyway.

Shaye

I don't think that they should fire her, but she needs to be educated on the practices of safe sex and follow it!  Who would want to take a chance on spreading an STD to anyone?

Play Safe and Have Fun

Kelly~

Let me get this straight... A woman who wishes to engage in ostensibly illegal acts is gonna be fired by an organization whose sole purpose is to perpetuate and profit from those same illegal acts?? All this because they don't approve of the manner in which she performs those same illegal acts?
  Did I miss something here? Or is this girl working (choice of words unintended) for a veterinarian? As I told the fellow yesterday who was worried about red bumps on his johnson "Stupid" is the perfect crime; the sentence is immediate and there is no appeal.
  Hobbyists will put her out of business long before her bosses would. If not, I guess they're all gonna get sick together.

If someone gets a dose from her it will reflect on the agency and the other girls.  So, I think an educational conversation and a warning are in order.  I think Fearlessleader got it right.

I just posted something about this on the LA board recently. I also know of providers that DO have STD's that see clients "bareback". It's like a taboo subject (STD's) that no one wants to discuss.  We all know that condoms relieve MOST of the risks, but shouldn't we all still be more concerned? Especially when the provider goes "bareback" with a client that likely have an unassuming S.O.

Should this girl be fired from the agency she's working for??? In my opinion, yes.

Factors that Influence Risk Reduction", by J. Thomas Fitch, MD, et alia, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Journal of the American Sexually Tranmitted Desease Association), December 2002, page 816.

-----

(2) Patients using condoms should be provided with information to explain the difference between absolute protection (which prevents infection) and partial protection (which reduces the risk of infection). Condom users must know that condoms, at best, reduce their risk of some STDs and may or may not reduce the risk of other STDs.

(3) Patients using condoms should be provided with the information that their risk of contracting an STD increases with the number of disease exposures--even when condoms are used consistently and correctly. This increase is even more dramatic with inconsistent or no condom use.

(4) Patients using condoms should be provided with the information that condoms are not equally protective for every STD. The actual degree of risk reduction provided by the condom depends on other factors, many of which are outside the user's control, including gender, mode of disease transmission, and disease-specific infectivity. Condoms appear to be "more forgiving" for STDs with low infectivities (such as HIV) than for STDs with high infectivities (such as gonorrhea in females).

----

Remember that gonorrhea transmits very very well through oral sex not just through sexual intercourse.

By slowing the transmission of STDs condoms help keep disease out of the population. (Remember each infected person has to infect at least one other person or the disease dies out of the population.) Thus, from the public health standpoint condoms are very important.

The only completely safe sex is sex with an uninfected partner. Condoms only make sex safer. If your partner is infected they don't make it safe (although they will reduce the frequency with which you become infected).

I do think that if both partners wore full body condoms (similar to the suits worn in biohazard conditions) that sex would be effectively safe. Less than that and you are just deciding how much risk you are willing to accept.

Mathesar

P.S., I think someone once said something along the lines of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."


-- Modified on 3/5/2004 2:27:30 AM

how that would work.
Obviously, the agency can't be employing this person to have sex with clients, as that would be prostitution, and we all know how evil that is. Why, any of their employess at all found to be having sex with clients must needs be fired immediately lest they cause the agency to be guilty of criminal enterprise. Yes?

'why are you testing so often - you use condoms, don't you - so why test - you're fine...'

decrease the frequency with which you need to be tested.

In the article "Promoting Condoms for Oral Sex: Impact on Pharyngeal Gonorrhea Among Female Brothel-Based Sex Workers", by Mee Lian Wong, MPH, MBBS, et alia, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, June 2002, the authors state:

-----

Our earlier prospective study on female brothel-based sex workers in Singapore found that unprotected oral sex increased their risk of acquiring pharyngeal gonorrhea from their clients by 17 times (95% CI: 8.0-36.5).

-----

Note that the adult film industry requires monthly tests for HIV. I don't see any need for more frequent HIV testing for anyone. Personally, I get tested about every six months (which works out to about every 15 to 20 encounters).

For someone having frequent sex with different partners AIM believes the PCR/DNA test is the best (See http://aim-med.org ).

Note that with the older tests (which test for antibodies) there is a window between infection and seroconversion when antibodies may not be detected in an individual. (See link below.)


-- Modified on 3/5/2004 2:32:10 AM

As it happens I just had my latest test just last Wednesday and after seeing this thread and others like it before I asked the woman doing the test a bunch of questions while I was there

One thing she said I was surprised about is instead of every SIX months she said the test goes back THREE months(it tests for antibodies of HIV)...this was the test where they stick a swab in your mouth for four minutes(other tests may still be the six months)

Then we got to talking and she confirmed something I had heard once long ago but they don't publicize it too much and that is the odds of transmitting HIV during a sexual encounter with NO protection is 1 in 250 if the man is infected and the woman is not BUT if the WOMAN is infected the odds of her giving it to the uninfected man is 1 in 500

But even that doesn't tell the whole story...the odds of heterosexual sex go waaaaay down if you take out the people who use needles with drug use(and share them presumably) and those who participate in anal sex

Of course if you already have a type of STD that causes some type of lesions your odds of catching HIV from an infected person go way UP

Just so you know..none of what I said above should be taken that I think the the girl in the OP is the sharpest crayon in the box and I agree you should always use condoms

I just believe you should know the TRUE risks you are taking and not just the hysterical rantings of those who may very well have their own motivations for exaggerating(or downplaying) what those risks really are

Hopefully everyone here gets tested regularly so if you think what I wrote is baloney then ask them yourself the next time YOU get tested

-- Modified on 3/5/2004 12:43:02 AM

However, the numbers are just estimates and agreeing within a factor of two is really pretty close agreement.

The point about lesions increasing the risk is well taken. It is also true that HIV is a disease where the infectivity varies enormously over the course of the disease. The disease is probably most infective in the first few weeks when a person is suffering from flu like symptoms and late in the disease when he or she is very sick with full blown AIDS. A HIV positive person taking drugs that knock the level of the virus in their blood way way down is also probably not very infective. (For obvious reasons there are no experimental studies so the preceding is somewhat less than certain.)

The risk numbers you quoted are the average risks of becoming infected from an already infected person. Whether or not your potential partner injects drugs or engages in anal sex has no effect on those numbers.

If your potential partner injects drugs or engages in unprotected receptive anal sex it increases the probability that they are infected (everything else being equal), of course.

There are two separate probabilities to consider: (1) what is my probability of becoming infected from various acts if my partner is infected, and (2) what is the probability that my partner is infected. There is reasonable information available on the first question. About all it is possible to say on the second question is that the risk is near zero if your partner has had a recent test for HIV and tested negative.

Some time ago I did a risk analysis of various sexual activities and posted it here on the board. I include a link to that post below.


-- Modified on 3/5/2004 2:34:39 AM

Let me start again.. Many HMO's make the doctors pay for ordering testing.  I'm not exactly getting my point across here, but sometimes I think the doctors don't profit as much if they order more expensive services.

So, Sedona, I'm wondering if that is what is making your doctors question the testing?

I know my physician's assistant wanted to put me on the once every six month plan but I INSISTED on the monthly to six week testing.

Good thing, had I not, I wouldn't have caught them making a mistake with one of my tests, which I saw in the notations when I went back the next month for testing.  I forget now what exactly that was, but had I waited six months for testing, it would have truly been a YEAR for the correct tests to have been run.

(NeverMIND I have a friend that works in a lab, you'd seizure if you heard about the all the problems that happen there~~for instance, a machine is broken, but GO AHEAD and do the tests and sign off on them!!!)

I'm always too honest, but just saying you had a "high risk sexual encounter" should be enough explanation, who, what, when, where, and why is really none of their business.

Elise [email protected]