200 to 500 an hour or more is ok. But 50 bucks is just gross, makes me think of a crackho. Not my style.


HH

I was gonna blab out some very arbitrary and uncientific facts based on my own pussy chasing experiences, but instead, just answer this; would you rather fuck a chick who has had protected sex with a hundred guys, or a chick who got raw dicked by a stanger in an alley just once?  

Your solution is this - strap a bomb to your chest and go detonate it on a crowded bus. I hear you get rewarded with quite a few virgins for doing that. Otherwise, you're stuck with whores...and that is not limited to the ones who actually get paid for being one. Wouldn't it be great if chicks came with the vaginal equivalent of a carfax? No such luck. Just know, they all have some miles on them.

Lucky Irish Prick - that was Funny !

It's no big deal. Usually they are better fucks than newbies.

General rule of thumb about ladies review #s -

A lady gets roughly one review for every 12-15 guys she sees.  If she has 300 reviews, odds are good she's seen about 4500 guys.

First of all, you underestimate the promiscuity of barflys, college coeds and the like - but that is for another thread.

There is a saying, that when you have unprotected sex, you are not only fucking that one person, but everyone that person has fucked, and everyone those people have fucked and so on.

So even if you found yourself some goody-two-shoes broad whose hobbies include knitting socks for kittens and playing bridge with her bible study group - even if she has only ever had sex with ONE person - if that one person was a raging man whore, then sticking your dick in her could be the equivilant of fucking every ho that works Sunset Blvd.  

If you are going to say no based on your perception of how many people you think a chick has fucked, and there is no way for you to possibly know the true number, you may as well take your hooker money and stock up on Jergens lotion.

Because the risk associated with unprotected sex acts is really an undetermninable factor in judging someones likelihood of carrying infectious diseases based solely on the number of partners they've had; the more accurate statistic would be based on the likelihood of her partners to be carriers of disease, level of protective measures she uses and what acts she performs etc...which NO ONE could possibly determine on a large enough or narrow enough scale to come up with any data that would actually be useful. Suzie homemaker could give you the clap just as easily as Jezzebel the whore, and there would really be no irony in that, if you think about it.

When I don't cross the line - is when a girl has bus-rat skank written all over her. Crack ho's are out, for sure. And any bitch who mentions Justin Beiber for any reason at any point in our convo.

There is really no method or factual basis for my choices on who NOT to fuck (assuming the opportunity is offered in the first place, and that I would even WANT to based on my own taste vs my other options), only my own intuition, and I'm one who always goes for those slutty types. You don't need to trust a chick to give you the low down on every strange cock she's had in her, you only need to trust yourself to make the right decisions about how YOU will protect YOURSELF from whatever poercieved danger you think you are facing.

Persoanlly, I can think of a dozen things that are likely to kill me long before pussy ever has the chance to. And I'm as much of a slut as any chick on this site, tested, with negative results on everything that can be tested for.

And I don't know who you've been screwing, but where do you find all these girls that are down to make out with a bunghole? I've met more than my share of off-the-charts unabashed sluts, and the majority of them would sooner be shot than taste ass-of-man.

Because you're an alias (and yes ,I use aliases) I'll tell you:  you are a fucking moron.

You're simplistic logic that more partners to her means more risk to you may sound good (to you), but it is not the real risk factor that you imply.

What's stupid is it's that rationale that morally conservative people use to claim sex workers spread disease, sexwork should be illegal, etc. etc.

My time with providers has taught me something which has been expressed to me by experienced other men as well: When you are referring to your own health risks, providers in general (not streetwalkers or pimped girls) are 'cleaner' and safer than most sexually active civvie women.

Secondly, you are likely a hypocrite. too. You'd fuck 1000 women in a year if you could, ASSCLOWN.  

If you think I being to harsh or don't know of what I speak, why don't you check-in with someone like beefeater.

Now, don’t take my comments too personally.


HH

It's B-O-N-E-H-E-A-D


HH

"Anyone who is sure they know everything about "risk management" is full of shit." - no doubt. Amen.

But...

"The crap about experienced providers being lower risk than civvies is a pipe dream." - If you claim to know this as fact, then by your own standards, you are full of shit.

I don't know if you are or not. You're making as many assumptions as anyone else on this thread, they might be right, or they may be wrong. But here is what I DO know:

I can count on one hand the number of times a hooker has so-much as hinted at doing anything that I'd deem "unsafe".

I can also count on one hand the number of times a civilian-ho has told me no to anything, once I got her juices flowing.

Escorts = rules. Rules rules rules. I know I'm not the only one who recognizes this, because there is no end to the bitching on these forums about what this or that ho won't do for them, and how dare they charge so much for not doing those things!

Civs, obviously spreading their legs based on personal preference rather than business obligations (as a general assumption in most cases - not hard fact) looser on restrictions because to get her into bed you had to gain a certain level of trust to begin with, where little exists to any significant degree in the "hobby" - and a host of other factors, your options are really only limited by how much she trusts you and/or how much emotional shit is stacked on top of that...or her level of alcohol consumption.

In short, if you had the inclination to go beyond the realm of what you know or believe to be "safe" - safe being a relative term - who are you likely to get further with - the pro who sees your cock only as a means to an end or the girl who actually thought your stupid ass jokes were funny? And I'm not talking about the obligatory once a month wife fuck for the stale-marraige guys to keep their spouse from dropping to roommate status - I mean a girl who actually wants your dick in her. 9 out of 10 times, I would not put my money on the hooker (bad pun noted).

Doesn't sound like you should be seeing providers if you think that way.....

And btw, if you do find a girl with your decided  quota, keep in mind, she may have simply asked clients to no longer review her.  Or she could simply new to TER, or  started fresh under a new name...  

But then..  If you are REALLY, REALLY curious, I suppose you could ask her straight out...  good luck with that..  

Doesn't matter to me how many providers a client has seen.  Oooh yeah, there are some very established clients here..  Remember those videos in Sex Ed...  You know, where they teach you that you sleep with everyone your partner has slept with whose slept with everyone their past partners have slept with..  

Okay, I am just teasing now and feeding your fear.   I'll stop.  .  I'm sorry.

We are not so bad and most of us take all the precautions we can.  I have provider friends and civvie friends and we are all very honest.  I know my civvie friends take a helluva lot more risks than we do.  Strange, but true.  

XxXxxx

I am new to this.  My choices are this... well reviewed ( 30-300) or almost nothing!  I am interested in breaking my "cherry" in Vegas.  There is some fine poon ( from reviews ) and I am terrified to take the plunge.  Would I rather do a chick that has 300 reviews ( who has done at least 3 times that ), or a bar chick ( CIVIE)  that has done maybe 20 guys?  

Maybe I'll just rub 1 out?  

This hobby site is informative & scary @ the same time.

WTF????

I would disagree with your point, on the theory that most providers who have achieved a large number of reviews over several years have done so because they have managed their risks. There are obviously exceptions, and I try to use TER to sort them out.

252, by the way, is the largest number of reviews that a provider had when I saw her. It's not something I have ever thought about, but since you asked, I got curious and did a quick check. I don't plan to think about it much in the future.

after a first meeting or a second, some discussion of protection policies is reasonable. i think a compatible risk toerance is more important than a review count.

some guys DNS a girl if she sees clients who see TS providers. i think that's silly.

i also think it silly to have a review cutoff.

for me, as long as she exhibits sense, good judgement, and tests regularly i don't care about the number of reviews. if she shows signs of having an alcohol or drug problem in combination with a pattern risk taking, then i would draw the line there. some girls when tanked up or spaced out do not exhibit good judgment.

I've seen a couple that have about 100. I don't care now and won't care later.

Lots and lots of reviews don't turn me away at all. The more the better. I want someone with experience and someone who knows what she's doing.

This is not a no-risk sport.  The crap about experienced providers being lower risk than civvies is a pipe dream.  There's no Pproviders' How-to on STDs."  Everybody's winging it.  Some get good medical advice,some don't. How do you know anyone's being tested?  Because they say so?  LMAO! And how do you know the reviews tell the whole story?  How do you know she isn't doing off-the-menu-BBFs-shit?  Happens all the time, and I've been on the receiving end of it. Even if she isn't, but she's doing DFK, DATY, and still getting tested, are you an expert on the incubation periods of herpes, chlamydia and a jillion other STDs?  Even if you think are, you can't be sure.  Stop kidding yourselves.  Let's say she sees three guys a day and you saw her today.  The last guy she saw the day before had herpes but didn't know it was active; no sores, etc.  Guess what: you've got herpres now.
Sorry if I'm a killjoy, but this is reality.  We are all engaged in a high-risk game, and not just in terms of STDs, even though that's what I"m talking about.  Forget about LE and marital risks.  I'm just talking about medical issues.  I don't care how sure you are.  But if you are sure, you are delusional.  And let me make this clear:  I am taking the same risks you are, don't ask me why.  I am just doing it with my eyes open.  But if  I keep hearing about how much safer providers are than civvies I'm gonna throw up in my mouth.  Welcome to the Twilight Zone

Carter didn't stop with ONE pill, and Coke, Pepsi, and 7Up didn't stop at selling a couple cases of soft drinks.

 If I'm on a river rafting trip I'd sooner my guide have a shitload of experience to his credit rather than have 10 or so successful tours behind him.

dunno... if you want to get your dick wet (along with the rest of you) you might want to re-think the rookie rafting guide

I did some analysis of my own. lol I thought the OP's question had significant importance. If a provider has 50 reviews then roughly she has seen about 500 guys, assuming only 10% of those horny bastards write reviews. I don't see how I can be far off with this assumption.

Now, is 500 sample size enough to represent the general population with reasonable assumption?  Statistically... and with 95% confidence level at 5% interval, you'd need about 400 samples to get a reasonably representative sample of the global population of 6 billion people.  So, 500 seems sufficient representative sample size of the general population for this purpose, largely assuming there were enough randomness among the clients that the provider sees. I could be assuming wrong so don't quote me on this.

Here are the results:

.28 of them have an active Hepatitis A infection
7.5 of them have an active Hepatitis C infection  
25 of them have an active Hepatitis B infection
1.6 of them have an active HIV infection.  (.3% of US population)
32 of them have an active HPV infection.  (6.4% of US population)
.1375 of them have an active Syphilis infection (.0275% of US population in Washington DC hobby capital)
2 of them have an active Gonorrhea infection (.4% of us population  in Washington DC)
5.5 of them have an active Chlamydia infection (1.1% per 100,000 in US population in Washington DC)
80 of them have an active Genital Herpes HSV-2 (There's no cure for this shit! and 16% of Americans have this very common STD)
250 of them had an HPV infection at some point in their lives (50% of US population)


.0043 of them is a new case of Hepatis A
.0067 of them is a new case of Hepatis B
2 of them is a new case of Chlamydia
.05582 new case of Gonorrhia

Too tired and drunk to do the rest of the disease calcuations, and I might have made some mistake somewhere, but ya'll get the point. Brutal truth is that all of us have already been exposed to many of these diseases if we constantly receive BBBJ, DFK, give DATY, and shit like that. There are obviously some factors that greatly diminish the chances of an actual infection because oddly, with all my hobbying, my latest test from last week showed up squeeky clean.  I guess it helps that I don't do bare back except with the girlfriend...

Or was it girlfriend(s). lmao j/k



* My sources::

http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-america.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001329/
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/09/ps-herpes-usa-idUSN0923528620100309

Scientific method has and is used to asymptotically diminish the chances of a catastrophic event and to increase longevity. You can't base your conclusions on the exception to the rule. In terms of probability, math don't lie.  They might lie if you look at the 5% exception rather than the 95%... but over a sustained period of time, math is not known to be a liar. That's how insurance companies and casinos make their money.

It's also why GaGambler spent more money gambling  than in the hobby. lol

I'm as big of a believer in science as anyone, and math is accurate if you know how to formulate the equation. The point is, you can not do the math for this because there is no way to obtain accurate numbers to put in your equation in the first place - there are too many variables. Math is not known to be a liar, but people who carry embarassing STD's are. So are insurance companies and casino's - they stack the deck in their favor, and their statistical analisys is biased to favor their earning potential. Honesty is required for accurate science.

they charge more. "Ass licking girls", ie rimming are definitely the girls I will avoid. Licking a guys ass is one sure way to eventually contract hepatitis. Kissing a high volume girl who just had her tonge up someones ass just before I got there grosses the shit out of me (no pun intended). Pages and pages of reviews are a definite "dont see" for me. High number of reviews = more asses that she has rimmeed. Especially if most her reviews mention that her tongue was up their ass.

Since you missed it - I'll say it plainly - I AM saying that the outcome is affected by the measurement - the measurement is inaccurate, because the "known" stats are garbage. You can not put a hard number on any given persons chances of catching an STD. BY all means prove me wrong, give us that number.

Well, at least you tried to give a thoughtful response, unlike that dickwad Halfie.  First of all, no, I'm not a real doctor, but I've talked to docs who specialize in STDs and have providers for clients.  The issues I raised came from them and changed my mind about how damn sure I was about hookers being as safe as many assume.  And you have misunderstood me if you assume I was only talking about BBFS, which is only the most obvious high-risk activity.  Re-read the post.  I was also talking about DATY and even DFK, both of which are on most GFE menus.  How do the "Rules rules rules" apply  to that?  If she's seeing several clients a day you are sharing their germs, from the common cold all the way up to herpes, chlamydia and others.  She can't possibly know if she's picked one of these up, so neither can you.  It doesn't matter what the civvie vs. provider motivation is.  That's a red herring.  All that matters is your proximity to diseases she can't know if she has or doesn't have with a total degree of certainty.  
Personally, I'm clean.  But I also don't kid myself that my behavior, even in the absence of BBFS, is anything but a form of STD Russian Roulette.  I do it anyway, and cross my fingers.  What I don't do is kid myself about it.  And of course the risk goes down if you're seeing a high-dollar, well-reviewed, low-volume provider and not a BP skank.  But that doesn't mean there's no risk at all. I hope that's clearer, and thanks for a thoughtful response.

"And of course the risk goes down if you're seeing a high-dollar, well-reviewed, low-volume provider and not a BP skank." - This statement is just false.

The lady I got chlamydia wasn't a "BP skank." I know ladies that are high end, high dollar, well reviewed, and claim to be low volume that see more clients than your average Backpage provider. In fact as many ladies on Backpage are CBJ only, no DFK, and no DATY the Backpage lady is likely lower risk. I am good friends with a few and they all get tested often. Not every high end lady can say that.

Here is a fact, Every person in this game, male or female, paying or being paid, high end or street walker are high risk partners. Anyone that has more then five sex partners a year or has a sex partner that has more the five partners is high risk category of getting an STD. Personal behavior is the only way to keep you safe. Anything bare-back is risky including DFK of spreading. Most people do not get checked for oral cases of STD's unless they have symptoms. Even covered sex acts are completely safe.

Other then your statement towards the end, I agree with your posts. This is a high risk game. I take add risks like BBBJ's and DATY at time when I hobby myself and am condemning no one for there choices. But people in this game need to play with their eyes wide open. STD's are only one of many risks in this game. Only by being aware can we keep ourselves safe.

Your experience is valid, but it is just your experience.  It is a sample of one.  So it's worth what it's worth and no more.  I think as a general statement, what I said is correct.  But thanks for your other thoughtful comments.  Hope you're feeling well.

THere is our fundmental disagreement - I don't see forcasting as a form of science at all. IMO, true science reveals facts. Nuclear fission is science. Trying to figure out if Jane doe ho will contract HIV by age 30, is not. Being 95% sure that she will be expoosed to 1 client with HPV? A guess, based on data from... someone else's guess, based on someone else's opinion of someone else's lifestyle, skewed to fit whatever result benefits the forcaster, or the assumption that said individual would engage in activities that make them suseptible to HPV in the first place.

Surely we know if you roll the dice enough times, eventually you roll a seven. And the more people you fuck, the more people you will have fucked that are carriers of various things you don't want (duh) - that does not however, mean that you are necessarily more likely to CONTRACT one of those nasty things, any more than the casino can know how much money will be on the table when I crap out, vs when I hit my point.  

The 'methods' (NOT science) of forcasting are not debunked by the inaccuracy of the data which they use to forcast, only the results. It is only to say that you have a better chance of predicitng some things than others. And that not all 'forcasters' are created equal.

You must obtain accurate information in order to make even a relatively accurate forcast - how do you accomplish this in an underground sub-culture where privacy is paramount, lies are part of the deal, and whole truths are nearly impossible to come by? You don't, because there are variables in play here that don't all run parralel with the mainstream data they base all of their sexual statistics on (and even then, some of the data collecting practices are questionable - see the so-called studies by the assclown christians of Nevada trying to shut down the legal brothels which have NEVER had a recorded case of HIV infection amongst active sex workers). THey just blow smoke up peoples asses and play to whomever they are trying to please with their shoot-from-the-hip analysis.

You can predict the weather, to some degree (and most weather men are notoriously bad at it), when an earthquake will strike (like less than 1% of the time), and sometimes when the stock market will crash (again, not very fucking well)...but you can not predict people, especially when the people you are trying to predict won't participate.

that was just up some other guys ass a half an hour before? lmao

Yeah, you have a point about girls that offer "rimming", DFKng with that in the back of your mind is a real turn off, not to mention unsanitary and potentially dangerous health wise.

Yeah I'm drunk but the OP's question is quantifiable based on known statistics. It's possible to reduce risk based on the numbers at hand. It isn't as mysterious and unknown as you might think.

To get more accurate numbers it's a matter of using proper instrumentation / measurement. However, upper and lower limits can and havee been set so that people have a good idea of what the general probabilities are. Even if there are too many variables, there are ways to account for that.  It's always possible to quantify something as simple as the OP's question. It's nothing mysterious.

Of course the only time one starts getting mysterious is when one steps into quantum / relativistic realm where one begins to question if things are deterministic, or if the out come is affected by the measurement itself, etc but we're not takling about that.  

Of course measurement affects the outcome but I was referring to the case where if you measure something to be 0 but the outcome turns out to be 1... the total opposite. Real world is not as bizarre as this.

Known stats are improving asymptotically with greater precision, they are not entirely garbage and never entirely random. Even a random chaotic system has some degree of order and predictability in it. This is where science comes to play. Nothing is entirely random and vast majority of events are predictable to some degree.  

While an exact number is impossible to pinpoint, it is entirely possible to draw upper and lower limits where you can come to some remarkable & intelligent conclusions... with known margins of error.

For example, if a provider sees 32 clients she can be 95% sure that she will be exposed to 1 client who has an HPV infection with 5% uncertainty. The 5% uncertainty accounts for the error in measurement/etc.  

That means if you set up an ensemble of 100 systems (or providers). 95 of them will follow this pattern while 5 of them won't. We can be certain that majority of the time, this will be the case with 5% being the exception to the pattern.  

Of course, I was drunk when I came up with this and I'm not in the field of STD forecast.
But it wasn't pulled out of my ass and I'm sure the experts have a more precise number.