Don't providers know that allowing a gent to cum in there mouth and than spitting it out isn't going to save them if he's HIV positive?  I don't go and see providers that do BBBj.  Is this why there rated a 10 for not being safe?  It appears when you look at the ratings more times than not a provider that does things that are risky overall to us but more to her are given the 10's.  I think this is a sad commentary......

Errol, I fully agree with your statement! It is very Unfortunate that guys are willing to give a provider a high rating because of BBBJ. Not only is HIV a concern but a wealth of other STD's are of concern. The fact that there are reviews who also frequent transexuals and then visit providers who give BBBJ is frightning.

This line about "frequenting transexuals and then visiting providers who give BBBJ" smacks of ignorance and naivety.  I bet you believed every gal that told you she was a virgin too, right?The providers are more than aware of the risks they are taking.  Are you?  Have you studied the numbers enough to exactly know the risks, or are you basing your opinions on anecdotal evidence? (I'm guessing it's the latter)The bottom line is that in a large majority of cases, your provider is going to be having far more exposure to STDs than you are.  It is up to *you* to be safe, even if the provider is willing to do things that aren't so safe.And once again, we have somebody focusing on HIV again.  You aren't at that much risk catching HIV from taking cum in your mouth, swallowing it or not.  Can you?  Sure.  You can also die from a lightning strike hitting you as you porking the gal, too.  Your risk of getting chlamydia or gonnorhea is of FAR more concern, from any BBBJ action (cum in the mouth or not).

Are you a Dr?  What makes you so sure, where are you getting your facts from?  I'm with Errol!

I worry more about getting gonnorhea or strep from a bbj than anything else. Herpes are also a possibility.

Well, from what I understand gonnorhea and strep are bacterial diseases and can be cured but there's really no way to cure herpes.

I follow CDC reports.You seem to have focused on one part of my post (that HIV really shouldn't be your concern with respect to BBBJs), and have ignored the rest of it, which said that it pretty much is up to the customer to NOT get BBBJs if they aren't comfortable with the risk.  That customer is always free to avoid providers that give BBBJs, too.

When your spouse is a regular skeet shooter, (she owns two shotguns) and has a hot temper, it is best not to bring any surprise home.   The results could be incurable.

No, there is no way to cure herpes.  People don't die or get all that ill from it, though, while a good case of gonnorhea gone unchecked well have you in pretty bad shape.One "interesting" thing about genital herpes is that about 1/4 of the adult population in the United States has it.  Given that most people here have more sexual partners than the average bear, even if it's protected in most cases, we would expect probably a higher level of infection here.  Maybe 1/3?  I bet if you had an anonymous poll, you'd still get only about 10% of the respondants admitting or knowing they had herpes.I guess that if I had a point to make here, it's that there is a strange dichotomy on this board between the actual data and the level of preachiness or "not me" talk that I see.  Then again, I'd probably expect most people that knew they are infected to be silent on the issue.

Hey; I am not saying one should be unsafe or should have *nothing* to worry about.  All I am saying is that it is pretty damned difficult to contract HIV via a BBBJ from your standard provider, and it is pretty difficult for her to contract HIV simply from swallowing.  The biggest risk is for one that has bloody gums -- don't floss right before giving a BBBJ!I'm just saying that HIV gets way too much focus.  You really should be far more worried from the less severe STDs you can get via a BBBJ (gonorrhea, chlamydia -- even genital herpes).

I agree. When I want information about HIV, I get so many answers on how I can get it. If you go to Planned Parenthood, everything short of sneezing causes the HIV virus ( their main focus is abstinence), if I go to some of the links I have seen on this site, the risk is so low that you have to have lacerations on 90% of your body to get it. So I figure all that I can do is take care of myself. I have also read alot about the "minor" STD's that don't kill you, but hell if I want a big needle stuck in my ass and have to swallow horse pills for a week everytime I see somebody. You don't like using rubbers cause there's no feeling? Get over it. We have created the world we live in. If you want a cure, try donating to the AIDS foundation for research. Until then, let's stop trying to figure out whether it is safe to get BBBJs ( or to give), just know that the diseases are out there. And if you like to play russian roulette, do it, but don't ridicule or call someone else silly because they are worried about their health. Perhaps if we were a little more worried about 30 years ago, this shit wouldn't have gotten to where it is now.

When aids started to breakout up in the bay area, in '83. The President was so concerned he allocated 1 mil for research.  For those of you who don't know anything about research, 1 mil. is like putting a bandaid on severed arm.  The Pres. and his religous right friends thought that aids was, "Gods curse to Gays"In addition, The White House refused funding for the Red Cross to run tests on the nations blood supply, people going in for major surgery and were being infected right and left.If you want to watch a brief but fairly accurate movie on the subject, check out "The Band Played On".Rondal Regans' legacy will not be the destruction of the Soviet Union. It will be death of millions of human beings, that only Hitler would be proud of.Then again Karma moves in mysterious ways, now old Ronnie doesn't now whether to Shit of go Blind.G.

I think that Gandalf makes a good point. The initial response by the Federal government to AIDS was pitiful, due in no small part to the massive shift of Research & Development funds from civilian to defense. Before Reagan's presidency, the split was 50/50 between civilian and defense, and after it was 75/25. This effectively gutted biomedical research programs at the National Institutes of Health, and also the Centers for Disease control. If there had been decent budgets in the '80's for AIDS, then the highly-effective antiviral therapies for HIV would have been developed then, and not in the mid-90's. Then too, we are only now making good progress with anti-Alzheimer therapies that could have helped Reagan's disease in its early stages. These too would have been available, if only Reagan wouldn't have devastated those civilian R&D budgets. It's always the enemy that you don't suspect that does you in.

"Ronald Reagans' legacy will not be the destruction of the Soviet Union. It will be death of millions of human beings, that only Hitler would be proud of."You gotta be kidding, right?!!? In 1983, we were in the middle of a recession that rivaled the Great Depression. The Prime rate was near 20% and inflation was not far behind. Unemployment exceeded 10% and there was no end in sight."The Gay Plague" was a total mystery. Your quote here is too bizarre to comprehend: "In addition, The White House refused funding for the Red Cross to run tests on the nations blood supply, people going in for major surgery and were being infected right and left."Item 1: The White House does not control federal spending... The House Of Representatives does... The House totally controlled by the Democrats until 1992... Item 2. The Red Cross does not depend on federal funds and writes its own policy. Blood screening was mandated when Elizabeth Dole ran the Red Cross. You know.... Republican candidate for P:resident... Wife of Senator and Viagra pitchman Bob Dole.Item 3. How many people? Ten Thousand? A Hundred Thousand? Fewer than 600.... infected through tainted transfusions according to CDC. Unbelievable.... I bet the greed of the 80's was worse than the greed of the 90's too. And Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and W.J. Clinton are honorable but misunderstood gentlemen, Great American in fact..... Wiz, I've gotta respectfully disagree.

Ignorance is bliss.....

My Brother Straightman,The reasons for the F**ked up economy in the early 80's through the mid 80's was the result of fighting World War III, without firing a shot.  Regan cut and diverted social funds from the economy in order to build up this nations defenses, as if we were in a actual war with Russia.  We suffered with high inflation and high unemployment as a result of that war, Russia went bankrupt.  Regan's whole economic theory was based on lining the pocket of the wealthy, with the hopes that it would find it's way back down to the poor.  Yeah Right!!!! Didn't happen and we got the Crash of '87 for it.The White House does control funding, in the form of Veto Power.  The Democratic controlled house sent Bill after Bill for funding and research, and each time the White House Veto'd the Bills.  And because of the homophobic beliefs of the Administration, research and funding for The CDC was blocked. The CDC with proper funding could have made a difference in the battle against AIDS.Regans Legacy:In 1985 over 1000 people in the San Francisco area had died due to AIDS.  In 1987 when the original Quilt was displayed in Washington DC, it had 1920 panels.  Each panel representing a life lost to the disease. As of today the Quilt has over 43000 panels.  Some more disturbing facts, since the pandemics begining.  In the year 2000 3 million people died of AIDS.  To date a total of 21.8 million people have died of AIDS.  Today there are 36.1 million people living with AIDS.  In all cases women suffer in nearly half the figures.  So, you are correct in the fact that it wasn't a Gay thing.  But that is not what the Administration believed.If that is not a legacy left by a man who listened to a bunch of paranoid zelots, then I owe you an apology.  But, had The Administration listened to the people who knew the real danger of not addressing this pandemic, I think that the numbers above would have been far less.  Because the President, is the Commander in Cheif of this nation, he must be aware of all the battles that this country and world needs to fight.  I do hold Mr. Regan responsible for ingnoring the biggest most costly battle, in lives, this world has ever known.Elizabeth Dole's resume during this period was: 1983-1987 Secretary of Transportation.  1989-1990 Secretary of Labor.  1991-1999 Head of the Red Cross.  Who the f**k was President during her term as Head of the Red Cross.  That's right, Billy Bad Boy Clinton.Don't give me any of this high moral bulls**t about Democrats versus Republicans.  It took how many Republicans to replace Newt?  Try 4, because the they were all guilty of sticking their dicks in places other than their SO's.  I'll admit Bill has rotten taste in women. But at least Jack and Bobby were putting it to Marylin.  Meanwhile let's not get into Eisenhower's affair with his secretay.Straightman I respectfully have to disagree with your conclusions, but I love you anyway Bro.G.--modified by Gandalf at Tue, Apr 03, 2001, 12:18:49

Isn't this great! My side will stand for your right to do think and say what you please.... Your side sees all those that have different points of vies as evil and therefore not fit to express an opinion. Interesting.... Sad.... But interesting...Social spending was expanded throughout the Reagan years. Veto power? The president does not have veto power on line items. Appropriations bills are passed en masse.Amazint that your hatred can run so deep that you become blinde to small facts.My mistake on the Red Cross timing for ED. I guess somebody else didn't recognize the danger of AIDS/HIV in 1983.So. Do you have an open enough mind to be friends with a right winger... I din't think so.... --modified by Straightman at Tue, Apr 03, 2001, 12:40:23

You have every right to express your views, and I respect your views.  But, the facts are the facts.1. Regan did defeat the evil empire.  He deserves credit for that.2. By using up the Money Supply in order to fund the military build up, the Fed had to raise the Federal Funds Rate.  That in turn raised the Prime Rate, which robbed this country of its capital, from which the investment community uses to make markets grow. Markets don't grow, somebody comes in and takes over the markets.  The Japanese.  In addition this created the defecits, that we are facing today.3.  Due to the poor business enviornment, government has to cut back on social spending, because the revenues are not being realized from the taxes being collected, due to high unemployment. 4.  Not enough money for social programs, means that funding for fighting a new disease takes lower priority over the fight against drugs.  Here is were we have a conflict between moral issues.  At the time the war on drugs was far more important to the Administration, then a bunch of sick Gays in San Francisco.  It's a matter of priority.  I feel the Administration had the wrong priority.Straightman this is pure economics, and only my opinion, you don't have to agree with it.  But this is the natural chain of events as I see them.In addition we fought a war in South East Asia that I was totaly opposed to, but I still went, because I choose to live in this country.  I may not agree, but I will always support the right for anybody to have the freedom to disagree.Peace,G.

Gandalf. As with most HBO movies, "And the Band Played On" is far better than your average TV movie fare. After allowing for a certain amount of creative licence, this melodrama does a fairly decent job of depicting the origins of the AIDS epidemic. However, as much as the politicians had a role(or better stated, whose non-role)in allowing the disease to spread, so did the medical establishment. Much of this disease could have been greatly minimized, if not totally prevented, if it were not for these "caregivers" narrowmindedness and egoticism. In the most early stages of discovery, there was this incessant petty bickering over the medical/research "ownership" of this deadly plague. This complete lack of cooperation and collegiality had as much to do with the spread of AIDS as the restrictive funding. Also it is worth noting that it was the failed responsibility of Congress, and not so much Reagan, that can be credited for not making the necessary appropriations. In the early to mid 80's, homophobia was not just limited to Republicans, as Democrats were just as much to blame. In the immortal words of George Wallace, "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats or Republicans". Another quote on this subject that could also be attributed to the late governor, "the Republicans just say out loud what the Democrats say in the bathroom." Democrats, Republicans,medical establishment-what a triumvirate to look after our health care needs. Thank you, Gandalf, for initiating your thought-provoking comments.

1. Nope. You and I did. Every time we disagreed politically but did not then try to kill each other's family.2. Money Supply? Military build up? (I say re-build...)the Federal Funds Rate? 1960's and 1970's Keyensian theorists have been broken by Paul Volcker, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan.3. Government raised taxes and killed business. Revenues fell but spending increased. This caused inflation. What cut inflation? Cutting tax rates. This also increased total revenue to the government.4. Not enough money for social programs means that funding for fighting a new disease takes lower priority over the fight against drugs. Here is were we have a conflict between moral issues. At the time the war on drugs was far more POLITICALLY important to the PUKES IN POWER. Sick people were not noticed in time to make a difference in the spread of the disease. At the same time the disease of addiction ran rampant. Which claimed more lives? You already know the answer. There was no MORAL decision. There rarely are in politics. IMHO."It's a matter of priority." It was a matter of ignorance, as is often in politics. Gandolf My Peer, much of what we are discussing here is pure opinion, don't you agree? Ideological though it might be.

Justaplayer,You're welcome, it's good to look back and see where we've been, and I do enjoy the vast degree of intelligence, and varied opinions that abounds on this board.You are correct in your recognition of the bickering and egocentric antics of the medical and research professionals.  The political end fighting did have a very large role in delaying constructive research.  But in the begining the CDC was granted 1 million dollars in their efforts.  That money was to be used for research and for education, especialy within the Gay communitiew where the disease was breaking out.  That was for the entire nation.  Hardly enough.  Living up in the Bay Area during those years, the message was not getting out fast enough.  The bath houses were full, the bars were full.  In a 2 year period 1000 people had died.  Not a word was mentioned, only rumors and off handed jokes.  If a serial killer, kills 4 little girls and 4 little boys, in a two year period, the media, and law enforcement would be on the local news every night.  Every freak'n night there was a Zodiac Killer report on the news, and in the papers.  Gays dying in the castro was 1 collum page 4 of section B story, ran once a month.I disagree with the fact that congress failed to appropriate the money, they tried.  The President veto'd the bills that Congress tried to attach the funding to.  I agree with the claim that the President can't line item veto, but he can flat out veto an enire bill.  And any bill sent to him with further funding was automaticaly dead on arrival.Peace,G.

Gandalf is correct. In the early '80's, the Reagan administration was unilaterally responsible for shifting the ratio of military to civilian R&D from 50:50 to 75:25. This effectively gutted National Institutes of health and Centers for Disease Control budgets for new research/surveillance, particularly AIDS. The scientific rivalry that existed between Gallo and Montagnier was less important in delaying AIDS research than was the absence of sufficent scientists/research groups in the early stages. In this case, "throwing money" at the problem would have hastened development of effective therapies. Reagan was very sensitive to the Christian Right, who did want funding for this "gay" plague. The danger for us all is that George W. may well cut AIDS funding, since the Christian Right has not particularly changed its stance.

Am I the only one born before 1980 on this board. 1979 21% interest rates! An aging econmy constantly being beat by the Japenese Who by the way had new factories and technology thanks to yours truly US of A after WWWII. We had an old economy that was going nowhere fast. Especially competing against Germany and Japan who by the way have no military to cost in their budgets. Reagan along with some very smart people changed all thought of how to do buisness in the US without the huge costs of rebuilding our manufacturing base. And the turn around you are now enjoying up till April of 2000 is due to that thinking. Sure I think he made a mistake with aids Somebody forgot to tell somebody that these people can go bothways therefore it can get into mainstream (eventhough you should cure it no matter whos got it) it would have gotten more Attention $$$ faster. As for the military its the only responsibility of federal goverment and I for one DO NOT WANT TO WAKE UP NOW OR IN THE FUTURE AND SAY WOOPS YOU KNOW WE SHOULD OF BEEN STRONGER. You just dont get second chances in that department. Listen there have been RICH since time began get over it your Bill Clinton is proof if you give all the power to the goverment only the people in goverment get rich. Keep the money in the marketplace where at least you have a shot at the dough.--modified by fuser at Tue, Apr 03, 2001, 23:19:44

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/almanac/money/ http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Fedpercent.htm http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/HISTORICAL_ECONOMIC_STATISTICS.htm I love the huppi guys! The facts are great. They didn't like how the 80's stats looked using the 1970's model so they "loaded" the summation model to reach a pre-determined outcome. Then changed in again in the 90's. I love dishonorable people. They are so easy to see through. All you have to do is look at the math; if it don't add up, you can either accept fact or fabricate the outcome to meet your premise. This is how scum on both sides operate and we all should call a liar a liar.