Has anyone gotten an e-mail or phone call from a provider, letting them know the just had STD test and either came back negative or positive.

I just find out that my blood tests were negative but my pap smear show Trichomonal ( Infections, inflammation caused by a parasite).  (Curable with treatment). (Very contagious between sexual partners

We all know that we practice safe sex but there are though 2% of clients where everything is going hot and wild and before you know it, your done and the condom is still sitting in it’s wrapper on the night stand.

So my question is do I notify my clients or just let it be.

That's not something that should even require a question, IMO.  You notify everyone who could have been affected.

Men can pass this on to other women.   Please let them know!!

-Hoot.

The ethical thing to do is to tell them.  The logical thing, too, when you think about it.  If you don't tell them, they may pass it back to you after you're cured, especially if they don't have symptoms and remain clueless and untreated.

Of course, telling them will hurt your business, both in the short and long runs, won't it?  Sure, some people here will praise you for it, but will the guys be wary of you now?  Sort of a Catch 22.

I wonder how many Providers 'fess up when they catch a dose.  Same for Hobbyists.  Some of these can be cured, but what about AIDS, Herpes, genital warts, etc.?  If you're a Provider with one of those, you're out of business if you "out" yourself.  I guess you could always change your stage name, cancel your Cityvibe ad and start to advertise in the LA Express, but would you?  My guess is a lot of Hobbyists wouldn't "out" themselves.

Doing the right thing's always best in the long run, even though there's often a price to pay.  Good luck!

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but am I to believe that 2% of your clients have an unprotected session due to the heat of the moment? How unresponsible is that? Please PM me so I know who you are and can make sure to NEVER become a client of yours. How many unprotected sessions does it take to contract a potentially fatal infection? Last I checked the number was ONE. That's not 1% but just one person. It doesn't sound like you practice safe sex to me and really doesn't speak well of your clientele either. Is that 2% active with the people I see?

That is the first thing I noticed about this post also.
Irresponsible, unprofessional and to have to ask this question is total ignorance.

Before you go criticizing providers for the 1 or 2% of the time they have passionate sex without a condom, let's look at the hobbiests and see how many have sex with a girlfriend or provider without using a condom. The key here is to support eachother in being truthful and using condoms as wisely as we can.

we all run risks in this job.

We all know something could happen. (If anyone disagrees with that, please WAKE UP.)

Tell your clients, all they need to do is go to a clinic and get the pills to cure it.


It will be embarrassing, but at least they will know.

With trich the  symptoms for the woman appear faster than they do with a man.

Shaye

oh, and a reminder for all of us, no wrapper ...no pu**y!!

I agree that she should notify her clients...but in all honesty, if you are active in unprotected activity, then the potential risk is there ...I remember a previous poll on here....50% have never been tested (scary)
       9% every 3 mths
       10% every 6 mths
       29% every year
Since most members prefer bbbj  (89% according to poll)
and are seeking a GFE...you are putting yourself at risk for many viral infections (curable) Warts, herpes (not curable)

MY POINT.... Imagine how many members are running around with disease and are infecting ohers? AND are still naive, thinking they do not need to be tested because they are "not at risk"

 So you are telling me that sense the time you became sexually active you have never had unprotected safe. Wow that’s great.

Just because I am asking, doesn't mean I have had unprotected sex with my clients, I just gave the 2% as a number. And I know that it has almost happen to me a few times.

And even if I was infected, it is not right for you to judge me, before you even know all the facts.

I may be marriaged and could have caught it from my SO. Just as you could be, broken condoms happen also.

condom on the NIGHTSTAND.  not broken, not SO or married.
you stated it gets so hot and heavy that you leave the condom on the nightstand.
Thanks for the post it was most educational.

Nothing anyone does can provide 100% protection from everything..certain forms of herpes being a prime example.  I would like to think that any lady I had intimate contact with of any kind would have the basic decency to tell me, & any other guy she'd been with, if tests indicated a problem.  It's not about recrimination or reputation at that point..it's about someone who being aware of the chances contributing to the spread by infecting others unwittingly.  Anyone who can't see that is someone I have no respect for & don't even want to be in the same general vicinity of, let alone in the same room.

Realistically test results are only accurate measures prior to your last encounter, beyond that we all need to use some common sense & pay attention.  I once had a mild urinary tract symptom that COULD have been the clap or more likely the frequently silent applause, but also many other things which were much more likely given my activities.  I had an appointment set which I promptly canceled, explaining why, until I could get tested.  As I anticipated, the results were negative for STD of any kind.  But for me to have acted otherwise would have been totally irresponsible.  Sure, I could have said nothing & chance letting her pass it on without knowing...& yeah, if it had been that I actually had an STD I would have likely been thought of as a pariah or else have kept the whole thing secret...letting her wonder who it might have been, but there comes a time when you have to place the welfare of others above self.

That 2% jumped out at me too, but I'm not sure what to make of it. Do most providers go BBFS with a small percentage of their clients?  Obviously we'd assume BBFS would come into a providers personal life, so I'm not sure if BBFS w/ 2% of clients is really any different.

Maybe it sounds worse than it really is.

I appreciate you asking here, and I understand the responses that have said "absolutely yes."

I guess I'd say, ask your doctor.  He'd have much greater insight into the issue.

Yes, you may have to say or suggest you have had several sexual partners, but in the end the embarassment is probably a fairly low cost for empirical information.

I care about my health. Evidently you don't.

Don't be so ruthless?
Heres an answer for ya....Don't be such a dumb#$%^!!!!

In having lots of sex there are realities and risks that all of us have to deal with. The risk of STD's and (for the ladies) pregnancy, are very very real and NOT something that it's ever easy to "forget" about... for me, not even in a passionate moment. Nope, NEVER.  Now you have to figure that condoms do break and/or slip off on occassion.  This lady is saying that in addition to that type of risk (which generally I think is low, low, low... but still, of OBVIOUS concern for anyone who cares about their health), she makes a choice to take MORE risks, consciously.  

Oh wait, she says NOT CONSCIOUSLY? She says she gets "caught up" in the heat of the moment? If so, that's even more cause for concern. In our job, it is inherent to our safety to always be capable of putting our safety first.

I'm sorry, I just cannot imagine any logical provider really thinking this way.

Sincerely,
Nicole

NO I do not think most ladies do BBFS with their clients, HOLY MOLY.  I know it happens but I wouldn't say with most... I wouldn't even say with a LOT, because frankly you have to be pretty stupid to go down that route. I mean it honestly... having unprotected sex with people you do not know is STUPID BEHAVIOR. Just like driving with no seat belt on is STUPID.

If I offended anyone, I hope they'll take this opportunity to go to the cdc website and read up on safe sex.

Sincerely,
Nicole

because the cdc, national institute of health, columbia university std projects ("thebody.com") all agree on one thing: the only way to prevent the spread of std is to totally abstain from sexual contact, or have it only with a trusted, tested, mutually monogamous partner.

based on that info, i'd have to conclude that anybody who has sex with a stranger is STUPID. condoms? thay don't prevent STDs and they don't CLAIM TO! they can only claim to reduce the risk.

Nowhere in her post did I see her CLAIM THAT CONDOMS PREVENTED STD's

The only way to prevent dying in a car crash is to not ever get into a car... somehow I don't think that's the choice you'll make... are you stupid?

I think you're trying to twist my words in a truly ineffective and ridiculous way.  Calculating risks and doing our best to minimize the risks we face are things each of us do every single day. We do it without thinking about it. We put our seat belts on, we stop at red lights, we look both ways before we cross the street. We do not live in bubbles. That does not mean that I'll drive without my seat belt, rush into the street without looking, or run a red light.

Thus it follows that in my sexuality I will always, always minimize my risks. That means condom use... not abstinence. I choose NOT to live in a bubble... you can choose to be a bubble boy and you will surely be safer than me, but smarter? I don't think so. Life is for living... with our risks minimized... NOT flagrantly ignored.

Nicole

I don't think I NEED to say that condoms prevent STD's... I feel pretty confident that it is an established fact with or without my sayso. I also feel that nothing can eliminate the risk of STD's 100% aside from abstinence... What, please, does that have to do with my arguing with someone who is taking unnecessary risks and is now SURPRISED that they've caught something?

Do I really NEED to bring up the car crash analogy again?

I'm kind of dismayed that STD education needs to be THIS BASIC here in this community.

Sincerely,
Nicole

sorry i was not clear.

the people who are telling you that HIV is a sexually transmitted disease are the same people who told you in the sixties that marijuana use would damage your chromosomes and lead to heroin addiction.

if you read HIV studies carefully and regularly (as i do, being a registered nurse and osha bloodborne pathogens instructor) you will find that the following facts are NOT in dispute:
1. HIV does NOT behave like other STD's (gonorrhea, chlamydia, etc) it is very difficult to transmit.

2. healthy human skin is a BETTER BARRIER against the HIV virus than latex

3. the hiv infected population of the world is less than .008% ... of the united states is less than .004%.

4. you might think that if you had the bad luck to be having unprotected sex with one of those infected people that you are pretty sure to contract the disease, in fact, the highest estimated risk (for unprotected sex with infected partner OR needle stick with infected blood) is about 12%. and the risk is lower for the "insertive" partner than for the "receptive" partner.

5. you might think that escorts - "professional sex workers" - whatever - are higher risk for HIV than the general population.
THERE IS NO PROOF AND NO STUDY, ANYWHERE, THAT DEMONSTRATES THIS TO BE TRUE! - unless the sex worker in question is ALSO an IV drug user. there are only two "behavioral" classifications of people that are generally agreed to be high risk for HIV - IV drug abusers and those engaging in frequent, rough, unprotected  anal sex with multiple partners.

what's my point? first, of course condom use is wise to save the inconvenience, embarrassment, and problems associated with STDs but i don't believe that warrants the insults heaped on those who choose not to use them or have an occasional lapse. second, i don't like it when the govt uses scare tactics to try to control people, especially when data does not support their position. and third, i don't like being called stupid just because you disagree with me. i'm not stupid, and i guarantee you i've done more research on this topic than most people.

Do a little research on my posts. You're arguing with the wrong person here.

I was being pedantic, and I will let you handle this neverending saga on your own.

That I misunderstood you... or that you were using sarcasm that went over my head. I am a blonde, after all, and do have my moments! If you'd care to explain, please feel welcome. All the same, I still feel a bit dismayed by what I'm seeing other folks posting.

Hugs*
Nicole

Goodness... you'd need to read thru my old posts for me to take apart this arguement bit by bit.

No, HIV is not easy to catch, but I don't think I said that. But if you're disputing that condoms protect against it, I absolutely cannot and will not argue with you.  Women are far more likely to catch it via unprotected intercourse than men, and to me taking that additional risk is just as stupid as getting into a car with no seat belt and then being upset when you go thru the windshield.

Now making a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to be in a relationship and not use condoms is a very different thing that being caught in the "heat of the moment" with a total stranger. Maybe you choose to take that risk, I absolutely do not and do not think it makes logical sense to say it's ok to do so.

Sincerely,
Nicole

Latex & non-latex male condoms have been proven in prospective research trials conducted by the CDC to effectively reduce HIV transmission between sexual partners in penile-vaginal intercourse.  The evidence for Discharge Diseases (Including
gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis) is less pursuasive - latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to these organisms, but epidemiologic evidence of reduced infection rates has been conflicting.  Concerning the Genital Ulcer Diseases and Human Papillomavirus - a condom only provides protection if the ulcer or infected site is covered.  Consistent use of condoms has resulted in a reduced rate of cervical cancer in women - a Human-Papilloma Virus- associated disease.  I am not sure where Clarence37 gets his numbers, but the HIV incidence rates he quotes actually sound like the incidence-of-infection rates PER EPISODE OF UNPROTECTED INTERCOURSE.  I have included information from UpToDate.com (A current medical on-line resource) and information from the CDC for your review:

UpToDate.Com:
VIRAL TRANSMISSION — HIV infection is usually acquired through sexual intercourse, exposure to contaminated blood, or perinatal transmission. (See "Transfusion transmitted HIV infection and AIDS" and see "Prevention of perinatal HIV transmission"). The mode of acquiring HIV infection was undetermined in 4 percent of the cases originally reported to the CDC. A careful review of 32,497 cases, however, revealed that only 0.2 percent had no clearly defined risk factor.

The distribution of the modes of transmission of HIV infection varies in different countries. Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use (IDU) account for more than 46 percent of the total cases in the United States; IDU accounts for 25 percent, heterosexual transmission 10 percent, blood transfusions 2 percent, and perinatal transmission 1 percent. While these figures apply to the total 20-year epidemic in the United States, the percentages for IDU and heterosexual transmission have been decreasing in recent years. The HIV risk categories are far different in resource-limited areas where vaginal sex is responsible for 70 to 80 percent of cases and perinatal transmission and IDU for 5 to 10 percent each [1].

An important study conducted in Uganda indicated the risks associated with sex: 415 couples with discordant HIV serostatus were followed for 30 months; 90 patients seroconverted (21.7 percent), and the risk of acquisition correlated with viral load [2]. The efficiency of transmission was approximately the same for female to male as for male to female. None of the partners of the 51 individuals with viral loads less than 1500 copies/mL or the 51 seronegative circumcised men acquired HIV infection. The importance of viral load as a risk factor for transmission has also been shown for discordant couples in the United States [3]. Another study in 174 monogamous couples with discordant HIV serostatus estimated an unadjusted probability of transmission per intercourse event of 0.0011; younger age, HIV viral load in the infected partner, and associated genital ulceration were all associated with increased HIV transmission [4].

REFERENCES
1.  Adler, MW. ABC of Aids: Development of the epidemic. BMJ 2001; 322:1226.
2.  Quinn, TC, Wawer, MJ, Sewankambo, N, et al. Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Rakai Project Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:921.
3.  Skurnick, JH, Palumbo, P, DeVico, A, et al. Correlates of nontransmission in US women at high risk of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection through sexual exposure. J Infect Dis 2002; 185:428.
4.  Gray, RH, Wawer, MJ, Brookmeyer, R, et al. Probability of HIV-1 transmission per coital act in monogamous, heterosexual, HIV-1-discordant couples in Rakai, Uganda. Lancet 2001; 357:1149.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Information from CDC:
Effectiveness of Condoms

Sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV:
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases. While the effect of condoms in preventing human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease

Last Updated: January 23, 2003
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention
Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention

a couple of points:

the studies reported through uptodate.com (a source i'm not familiar with, thanks, i'll have to check it out) seems a little confusing to me. for instance, it says that "... transmission was approximately the same for female to male as for male to female..." but the next sentence says that none of the negative males acquired infection from their positive partner. i would read that as saying that all 21.7% who converted were female. and what is that .0011% for the other study? the difference between 22 out of 100 converting and 11 out of 10,000 is big enough to show that there are many other factors to consider. they do acknowledge that viral load and compromised skin surface play a major role. like i said, i'm going to browse around the site...

my statistics come from the cdc, occupational safety & health administration, and the world census bureau. osha says that the risk of converting is 12% if infected blood is absorbed (forget about condom breakage or compromised skin, we're conceding that the infected material has been absorbed. whether or not you convert now depends on the viral load of the infected material, the status of your own immune system at the moment, and probably other factors that we don't know about at this time. as for the infected population numbers, it's just 40 million current cases worldwide divided by 6.2+ billion people (.008) and 900,000 cases in the US divided by 290 million+ (.004)

as for the statement you included from the cdc, i'm familiar with that. notice that there is no proof offered, no study quoted, nothing. just a statement that condoms are highly effective in preventing the transmission of hiv. that means that the hiv virus (probably) cannot pass through an unbroken latex barrier. it would be equally true to say "human skin is highly effective in preventing the transmission of hiv" since we know that the hiv virus cannot pass through it.

I am enclosing the web site with citations to literature with reference specifically to condoms.  At that web site additional literature concerning various STD's can also be found.  I cannot vouch for the quality of the literature & research since I have not read the majority of the studies.  It is my understanding that the recent literature concerning condoms is reasonably well done and reliable.  The older epidemiologic studies may be subject to statistical biases that reduce the reliability of any conclusions made in those studies.
As an anecdotal aside on this subject, the wide-spread use of condoms in Africa over the past few years has resulted now in the majority of HIV transmission on that continent being caused by the medical community there - primarily through the practice of re-using needles for immunizations, blood draws, & administration of medications!

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condom%20effectiveness/css/condom%20effectiveness.htm

Review Articles/General Overviews:
I. Condom Effectiveness:

[1] Cates W, Stone KM. Family planning, sexually transmitted diseases and contraceptive choice: A literature update–Part I. Fam Plann Perspect 1992;24:75-84.

[2] Cates W Jr. The NIH condom report: the glass is 90% full. Family Plann Perspect 2001; 33(5):231- 3.

[3] d’oro LC, Parazzini F, Naldi L, LaVecchia C. Barrier methods of contraception, spemicides, and sexually transmitted diseases: A review. Genitourin Med 1994;70:410.

[4] Feldblum PJ, Morrison CS, Roddy RE, et al.  The effectiveness of barrier methods of contraception in preventing the spread of HIV.  AIDS 1995; 9(Suppl A): S85-S93.

[5] McNeill ET, Gilmore CE, Finger WR, et al.  The Latex Condom: Recent Advances, Future Directions.  Family Health International: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1998.

[6] National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.  Workshop Summary:  Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention.  July 20, 2001 http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

[7] Stone KM, Timyan J, Thomas EL. Barrier methods for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. In: Holmes KK et al (eds): Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Third Edition.  New York: McGraw- Hill, 1999, pp. 1307-1321.

[8] Warner DL. Male condoms.  In: Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, et al (eds): Contraceptive Technology, Seventeenth Revised Edition. New York: Ardent Media, 1998, pp. 325-355.

II. Laboratory Studies:
[1] Carey RF, Lytle CD, Cyr WH.  Implications of laboratory tests of condom integrity. Sex Transm Dis 1999;26:216-220.

[2] Lytle CD, Routson LB, Seaborn GB, Dixon LG, Bushar HF, Cyr WH.  Lack of latex porosity: A review of virus barrier tests. J Rubb Res 1999;2:29-39.

[3] Lytle CD, Routson LB, Seaborn GB, et al. An in vitro evaluation of condoms as barriers to a small virus. Sex Transm Dis 1997; 24:161-164.

[4] McNeill ET, Gilmore CE, Finger WR, et al.  The Latex Condom: Recent Advances, Future Directions.  Family Health International: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1998.

III. Methodology:
[1] Aral SO, Peterman TA.  Measuring outcomes of behavioural interventions for STD/HIV prevention. Int J STD AIDS 1996;7(suppl 2):30-38.

[2] Crosby RA. Condom use as a dependent variable: measurement issues relevant to HIV prevention programs. AIDS Educ and Prev 1998;10: 548-557.

[3] Davis KR, Weller SC.  The effectiveness of condoms in reducing heterosexual transmission of HIV. Fam Plann Perspect 1999;31:272-79.    

[4] Feldblum PJ, Morrison CS, Roddy RE, et al.  The effectiveness of barrier methods of contraception in preventing the spread of HIV.  AIDS 1995; 9(Suppl A): S85-S93.

[5] Pinkerton SD, Abramson PR.  Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission.  Soc Sci Med 1997;44:1303-12.

[6] Schachter J, Chow JM.  The fallibility of diagnostic tests for sexually transmitted disease: the impact on behavioral and epidemiologic studies.  Sex Transm Dis 1995;22:191-196.

[7] Spruyt A, Steiner MJ, Joanis C, et al. Identifying condom users at risk of breakage and slippage: findings from three international sites.  Am J Public Health 1998;88:239-244.

[8] Warner L, Clay-Warner J, Boles J, Williamson J.  Assessing condom use practices: implications for evaluating methods and user effectiveness.  Sex Transm Dis 1998;25:273-77.

[9] Weir, SS, Feldblum PJ. Condom use to prevent incident STDs [letter]. Sex Transm Dis 1996;23:76- 77.

if you, MASSUESE, are a provider is it nicely termed fbsm or something of that nature? and there's any release of any kind and you're not wearing latex gloves (to protect any possible crack in your skin) and, probably most important, GOGGLES or a FACE SHIELD to protect your EYES, you could be in grave danger. correct me if i'm wrong. saliva is WAY more effective at killing germs than tears. tested lately? if you are not a provider, i offer my most sincere apologies and thank you for your concern for those involved in the hobby.