Last week, I went to the doc for my yearly physical. I went to a new doc as my old one had retired. He asked if I would be opposed to taking an HIV test, something he requests of all new patients. I had never really given it much thought before, except that I am in this "hobby". The only unprotected sex I've ever had in my life was with the gal I married. Oh yeah, and I have some tattoos from way back when, whatever the risks were/are in that. Anyway, results due back Monday...
My comments / questions to the community (hobbyists and providers alike) are these: With all the talk lately going on about TS providers, how do we know, by the way, that all of us 100% lifelong hetero's are all completely safe players, especially with all the bbbj's supposedly going on? I know in a hobby like this there are risks. How aware is everyone here of their own HIV status? Do you, and how often should you, get yourself tested for STD's (including HIV) playing in this hobby? Also, how many do you think are out there that continue in this hobby (hobbyist and provider alike) knowing that they ARE carrying an STD, or worse, are HIV+?
Just my 2 cents...
There are both providers and clients who are HIV+ who have convinced themselves that because their virus load is undetectable they are safe. Foolish children...
Some of the above are the more high profile individuals that make up this board.
You have free will. Hopefully, you also possess good judgment.
Every day I welcome newcomers through the gates who were taking the most advanced drugs available... it was once only a trickle. The flow is slowly increasing. Research HIV trends in San Francisco, a bellwhether for what will begin to expand beyond that city.
Take Care.
I don't understand. Are transvestite's and trans-sexuals documented to have a genetic predisposition to weaker immune systems? Your post seems to assume, that if someone has sex with a TS or TV that he is more likely to have had sex with an ill person.
Is that the way immunology works? I'm not sure. I'm not a doctor. Just asking.
The assumption is that all men who have ever had any type of sexual experience with another male (or TS/TV), regardless of whether or not either one had any STD's, regardless of whether or not safe sex was practiced, are carrying HIV. It is just an example that narrow minded and bigoted ignorance is alive and well even on a liberal board such as this one. HIV and other STD's are spread by carelessness and not practicing safer sex, not by people of a certain preference or bent.
It is just an example that narrow minded and bigoted ignorance is alive and well even on a liberal board such as this one. "HIV and other STD's are spread by carelessness and not practicing safer sex, not by people of a certain preference or bent."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I submit that the above comment is based in ignorance.... here is why.
It is a fact that there is more HIV in the Gay community. And that even with safe sex, condoms break. It is also a fact that San Francisco has had an increase in new HIV cases for the first time in years. The trend in the Gay community right now is towards less safer sex, not more. This is a fact born out of statistics. Mainly due to the fact that younger gay men don't feel the death threat that there older brothers did due to new drug therapies. The new drug cocktails can lower T Cell counts and viral loads to undetectable levels and let HIV/AIDS patients live virtually normal lives as long as they stay on their meds. An expensive but welcome medical development.
The straight population never got hit by HIV as hard as the political component of this disease predicted. Your comments fly in the face of medical facts that this disease has mainly affected Gay men and IV drug users. It is MUCH easier to get the disease from blood than from other body fluids. Gay sex and IV drug usage exposes one to more blood. If this isn't the case why the push to distribute clean needles and free condoms in these communities. In the early days rumors circulated that the virus was a government conspiracy to wipe out the Gay community. Not that it WAS spread by behavior. These are all FACTS not bigotry.
I am just as concerned about seeing a female provider who may be an IV drug user as I am about seeing one who entertains bi-sexual clients. Nothing personal at all, but this is my butt (pun intended). I have walked out of several female providers incall locations because the lack of cleanliness or order in their lives indicated that they might be drug users. This is one reason I prefer incall is to JUDGE a provider. Unfortunately unless you read a review you don't get any indication of this before hand. This is the reason why prostitutes and their clients are considered high risk as well, selling sex has been a common way to support a drug habit. Does this mean that all providers are crack ho's? No, not anymore than every gay or bi-sexual male is HIV positive. Just that statistics point to patterns and information you should use to lower your risk, should you choose to engage in high risks to begin with.
Female straight providers are already at risk and don't want to widen their risk circle by seeing bi-sexual men who visit this web site. The reviews here give higher point ratings for some less safe acts if you haven't noticed. This would all be a part of "practicing safer sex" by not being careless and seeing "people of a certain preference or bent". It is just a fact that Gay & Bi-Sexual men have much higher incidence of HIV/AIDS. This a factual based REASON for someone to be concerned. Not a value judgement of someone's character.
-- Modified on 10/29/2001 10:18:35 AM
"God", in his contribution to the topic, suggested researching HIV trends in San Francisco, and that's exactly what I did. Here's something I found that correlates with some issues Gigabyte raised.
HIV rates rising in San Francisco's gay community:
-"There are studies to suggest that the effectiveness of the new drugs and the fact that HIV is more of a chronic disease than a uniformly fatal disease is affecting some people's behavior."
-"I think this is probably happening everywhere that there's a substantial gay community,"
-"What does seem to be going on is that there are some increases in primary and secondary STDs in Seattle and Los Angeles"
-"...a rise in infection rates for other sexually transmitted diseases, like syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia... could mean an increase in unsafe sexual practices"
These are not bigoted opinions, but quotes from Robert Janssen, director of the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention in Atlanta, and Thomas Coates, director of the AIDS Research Institute at the University of California-San Francisco.
Remember that HIV/AIDS did start with the gay community, and for a long time was seen as a "gay" disease. Call it what you will, Bi, TV, TS, PreOpTS, same-sex sex, is seen by many, if not most, as "gay".
I also have a link to the entire article:
http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=12954
Also, S.F. Marks Sharp Rise in Syphilis
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-000085451oct27.story
However, some good news:
San Francisco bisexual men are unlikely to transmit HIV infection to women, UCSF study shows
http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/capsweb/bisexnews.html
I will agree with you that there is more HIV in the gay community, and that because of the "breakthroughs" in HIV treatment, unfortunately many people in it decided to abandon safer sex. And yes, it is true that there are a lot more HIV cases in that community. But I do not agree that it is solely men who have been with TS providers or other men who spread HIV into the heterosexual world.
But not every guy who is bisexual and has been sexually active with another man or a TS has been exposed to HIV, just as not every provider has a drug habit, as you said. I would venture to say that a lot of the guys who see TS's/bi men may have never even been involved in the gay community. In fact, I would think that the men who have been in situations where they know they are exposing themselves to a higher risk would take more precautions against possible transmission. I might even go so far as to say that it might be safer for a provider to be with a client who admitted to such experiences and had practiced safer sex than someone who claimed that they were totally heterosexual and had spent the night before in a gay bathhouse having anonymous unprotected sex sans condoms, because the truth is you never really know.
This is, regardless of whether or not any of us want to admit it, a hobby and profession filled with risks. I would say use one's best judgment in deciding which ones to take or not to take. If that means choosing not to see providers who one deems as high risk even if safer sex is practiced, great. If it means having a list of who you will and wont see and what you will or wont do, thats great too. If it means avoiding providers who you think may be drug users, thats fine. I guess I just get pissed off that the attack is on men who are not 100% heterosexual than those who act irresponsibly and do not practice safer sex.
I didn't mean to cause all that firestorm.
I can understand the population-argument -- that people in a certain community, who have a certain likelihood of meeting a certain disease, are more likely to be infected. I can't understand the type-argument -- that people of a certain sexual preference are more likely to be infected.
It seemed to me the original post was making the second connection -- an argumentum ad hominem, which is a fallacy -- on the strength merely of knowing that the first connection was sort of valid -- thus compounding his trouble by a ladder of implications.
Well I don't think it is a firestorm, seems like a fairly civil disscussion of a touchy topic. I am not trying to start a flame war (no pun).
Here is what I don't understand about the last couple of posts.
biinoc says:
"I would venture to say that a lot of the guys who see TS's/bi men may have never even been involved in the gay community."
book_guys says:
"I can't understand the type-argument -- that people of a certain sexual preference are more likely to be infected."
It is my opinion and this is the part I don't understand - most straight people consider bi men part of the gay community. One guy doing oral or anal on another guy is GAY! Just because the guy has boobs doesn't mean that you are not engaged in homosexual activity.
IF -as you said
"I understand the population-argument -- that people in a certain community, ... are more likely to be infected. I can't understand the type-argument -- that people of a certain sexual preference are more likely to be infected".
Maybe this is factually correct considering a news link in a previous post but...
At least to me - my opinion - and this is what I feel as a straight guy...
It is the exactly the sexual preference that makes you a member of that population. The ACT defines which set of the population you are in. Just because you don't do any stereotypical gay "lifestyle" is secondary. All of these things about responsibility are true. You could be totally 100% committed to an all out gay lifestyle and if you are careful and lucky never test HIV positive. But this wording of what makes a person Gay is what seems to be the semantic problem here.
And as Seinfeld said "not that there is anything wrong with that..."
But it is a form of denial to say that just because a guy looks feminine and takes hormone therapy that it is somewhere between homo and heterosexual behavior is a fallacy. And I will go even farther to add that heterosexual anal sex is very risky also. It puts provider and clients at a much higher risk for HIV transmission. I avoid providers who are known for this service for exactly the same reason. The chance for blood transmission is at its highest in anal sex. The blood vessels are right on the surface. And the ability of condoms to prevent STD's are the same as they are to prevent pregnancy, not 100%.
Basically this is what it comes down to for me.
Avoid needles/junkies and butt sex, wear a condom.
Actually it is a fairly civil discussion.
It goes back to what I and others have said. Assess the potential risks, educate yourself about them, and then decide what if any risks you are going to take, In your case that means avoiding anal sex or providers that engage in such, or situations where IV drug use may be a factor. That is a conscious personal decison and I for one totally respect that.
There are more than a few people, providers and hobbyists who engage in anal sex with condoms, and those who see TS/men and due to being responsible, and remain HIV negative; they have looked at the facts, and taken every precaution to protect themselves. Still that is a conscious personal choice, just as it is the choice of others to avoid certain situations.
A reading of the message boards (particularly the LA message board) on the TS topic lately may give the assumption that that is the prevailing attitude. However, the point of my original post is this: If one is hetero and in this hobby, and there was a guarantee that the providers she had seen had never been with TS clients, that would not preclude one from exposure or even infection with an STD (which may be an obvious point, but with all the current TS hysteria, we must rememeber that are always risks, regardless of the TS "problem"). My post was not meant as a slam towards TS providers or clients. What I AM urging is that everyone use more caution, including routine std screening, and refusing to engage in bbbj, daty, dfk and anything else which may have concerns, if you are that worried about it.
So. I am new at this hobby. What are folks advice? Should I avoid BBBJ and DFK. I use a condom for any intercourse. Sounds like DATY is pretty high risk...How likely is it to catch something nasty doing BBBJ, DFK and/or DATY?. Is a provider higher risk if she is a swallower? Do you experienced hobbyists ask a provider when she was last tested for STDs? Will they give an honest answer if you ask?
is stay away from sharp objects. They can get you in ALL KINDS of trouble. I know from personal experience...
Best regards,
#52
Not that anyone cares, but results came in, and the news is... no news, which is good news (about my hiv test, along w/ other tests from my physical). Doc said if it had anything, a prelim report would have come in with the rest of the lab work, so at this point no news is good news and we can assume a negative test. Everything else was clean and good, except... high cholesterol and high triglycerides.... soooo... no more fried food, sweets,red meat; more fruits and vegetables and exercise (more hobbying, perhaps? That's good exercise 
. Oh well! (and I always thought In N Out was the well balanced meal - you've got meat, bread (the bun), vegetables (french fried potatoes, tomato, pickle, onions), add a strawberry shake, there's your fruit, you're all set... LOL)
Happy Hobbying! Play safe!
and with ladies, it's no BBBJ and no DATY. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm here for a good time not a long time, and without all of the above, what's the f*ckin' point?
Now if you will excuse me, I've got to get this muff out of my mouth and disengage Mr. Happy from my lady's oral orifice. The room service waiter is here with my Porterhouse and loaded baked potato...
Best regards,
#52
-- Modified on 10/30/2001 4:26:32 PM