First, to Nina L, thanks: you made my day by suggesting the problem was the condoms were too small. :-> Sadly, I think the diminished sensation of the condoms, while not a practical issue for me in my 20s, is more of an issue in my 50s.
Second, several have raised the perfectly understandable point that IF all the conditions of the hypothetical were valid, no one would wear condoms, so what's the point? This is why hypotheticals are never perfect. The thrust, so to speak, of this hypothetical is my desire that people assess it with no concern about STD or pregnancy. Let me flesh it out a little: you've had a vasectomy. You know pregnancy isn't an issue, but the provider doesn't take your scars as proof positive. The provider has just shown you her brand-new negative STD test, and you know you're STD negative as well, but the provider is not willing to accept your word. OK? So now we have a hypothetical where, for all practical purposes, you're EXTREMELY confident of a pregnancy and disease free encounter, but your provider prefers you wear a condom.
Now in economics they teach that everything has a price. This is simplifying matters greatly of course. But, for the sake of argument, let's say a provider was told Bill Gates wanted to have non-condom sex with her for $1M; Bill's a little geeky, not exactly into the sex scene, probably very safe. Surely someone would do it for $1M. As the old joke goes: OK, now we're just haggling over the price.
So from the limited number of people who provided answers that took the directions of the hypothetical seriously (for which I thank all of you), it seems some would pay virtually nothing extra, even though they claimed *some* preference, while others would seek only providers how offered bareback (presumably even if that involved a price premium).
I find this information very interesting and appreciate the input of all those who offered their thoughts.
-- Modified on 11/9/2007 3:48:41 PM
-- Modified on 11/9/2007 3:57:58 PM
Let me reiterate: This is an ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL question.
It is designed for hobbyists only.
Assumption 1: You are not in any other relationships
Assumption 2: There is NO risk of STD to you (or her)
Assumption 3: There is NO risk of pregnancy
Assumption 4: Provider is willing
Question 1: Do you have a preference of condom/no condom?
Question 2: If you have a preference of no condom, how much more would you pay for that service (either in $ or as a % of base charge)?
-----
While, I reiterate, this is ENTIRELY hypothetical, I should explain why I ask, so motivations are clear:
I, personally, don't like condoms, though I always use them. Not only do they deaden the sensation for me, but I find it more difficult to maintain the erection (two cups becomes impossible for me). I realize they are a necessity for obvious reasons, but I wonder if I'm alone (in a minority) in disliking them so much--maybe many guys think they're no big deal at all--or whether this unhappy reality is commonplace. The Question #2 is simply an easy way to gauge the intensity of the dislike. Guys who'd only pay a little more to go bareback dislike it less than guys who would double the fee.
Anyway, it's something I've always wondered about and obviously not something I'd discuss with friends in public, so this seemed a good forum to ask.
Again, I don't mean to upset anyone with this question nor do I advocate or suggest unsafe activity. Just curious.
and yup, ya can get them.
So please understand WHY this causes so much angst... it is because there are people out there who play with fire - everyday - and I do not know who they are.... now let me give you reality....
The only time I have gone BB - was in the good ole days..... early 70's when the girlfriend was on the pill.... and in the 90's and early 00's on a couple of occasions with the wife.... (clearly at least 2 such occasions... but there were others...)..... Soooooo, now haveing said that... lets look at what happened - in both instances you would think that I would have been safe.... right?
answer.... NO! in the first, HIV has been found in tissues saved from pre-AIDS diagnoses.... in the 60s..... so it would depend entirely on who you had sex with, how many times... and the protection used....
in the second.... my ex cheated on me.... I STILL know nothing about the guy - except that they were BOTH married - so , I really don't know his sexual health status....
Did I enjoy BB? yup.... enough to risk it for any price? no...
Bizarro,
Although it's not entirely clear from your answer, it seems you have not actually HAD an STD. Great. Glad to hear it, though I understand your concern.
My brother is an MD, and I've heard numerous lectures (not brotherly lectures--real lectures by MDs on the subject). Again, it's a hypothetical. The focus in NOT on "how much should we risk getting an STD" We shouldn't risk it at all. The focus in on "how many men don't like condoms, and how much don't they like them?" Perhaps I could/should have simply asked the question that way, but I asked it the way I did to motivate the analysis: "IF I knew there was not STD risk, no preg. risk, would I *still* wear them? How much would I be willing to pay to not wear them?". My interest is not to find out how risky men are willing to be, but to find out how much, if at all, they find condoms detract from the joy of sex.
So without all the risks inherent in BB in ANY era, yes they detract. There, you beat it out of me.
I understand. You think it's a stupid question with an obvious answer. Perhaps I should mention that one of my interests is behavioral economics, a branch of economics that tries to study the behavior of actual people making choices and apply economic theory to explain it (sometimes people's choices don't obviously fit into simply supply/demand explanations--it's an interesting field with at least one Nobel laureate to its credit). That's why, to me, the second question is more interesting than the first.
Maybe I should begin: AS A HYPOTHETICAL, WITH THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS PERFECTLY SAFE (EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW IT ISN'T), my preference would be not to wear condoms, and I'd be willing to add an extra $100 on top of the already $350 session for that. But probably not more than that.
GreatRush is likely right: probably 99% of men don't enjoy condoms and would prefer to not use them. But my hypothetical, and I apologize if I'm being pushy--I'm just trying to clarify--is designed to find out HOW MUCH they don't like them. Do most men dislike them even more than I (willing to pay even more than $100 extra), or am I an outlier, with most men only willing to pay an extra $30 to go bareback. IT'S JUST A HYPOTHETICAL.
AS A HYPOTHETICAL, WITH THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS PERFECTLY SAFE ...
Now I understand your supposition. Of course almost all men would choose the BB option with the possible exception of premature ejaculators. But, no. I wouldn't pay $100 more for it. In fact, if it were 100% safe, how could a provider justify the added charge?
Safe meaning neither provider nor provider was carrying a bug, then why pay extra. If the incentive for BB was more money and there is NO risk, why would any one pay it or charge it? Hypothetically speaking of course.
If you're actually interested, the premium has been estimated. Gertler, et al, JPE (2005). It's a well-known paper, though I've never sat down and gone through it.
The abstract:
While condoms are an effective defense against the transmission of HIV, large numbers of sex workers are not using them. We argue that some sex workers are willing to take the risk because clients are willing to pay more to avoid using condoms. Using data from Mexico, we estimate that sex workers received a 23 percent premium for unprotected sex. The premium represents a value of one life year of between $14,760 and $51,832 or one to five times annual earnings. The premium jumped to 46 percent if the sex worker was considered very attractive, a measure of bargaining power.
gave my reasoning behind the answer - much as you gave your reasoning.... I don't care how many lectures you've heard.... when this type of scenario is posted.... some dim bulbs read it as an OK to go out and go BB. Quite frankly, if that did NOT increase the chance of STD frequency in the general population, I would say let them do that, and in that manner we can trim the heard from mentally defective units.
Got it?
-- Modified on 11/8/2007 10:15:45 PM
I "get", Bizarro, that you feel strongly about the issue despite the hypothetical nature of the question. I don't see why you feel that means you should try to bully others into not discussing it. Perhaps I have a higher regard for the readership here than you do. In any case, I don't recall responding in a hostile fashion to discussions you initiate. Feel free to ignore the post if you wish.
For those interested in a clever economic analysis of promiscuous sex with some counterintuitive results, you might enjoy reading Slate's Armchair Economist Steven Landsburg's "More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Economic Case for Promiscuity"
http://www.slate.com/id/2033/
and what is presented in your economic case for promiscuity is a mathematical model for the prevention of the spread of HIV! a freakin mathematical model...
Wow! how encouraging.... Seriously, this is highly speculative at best. And again.... hostile? remember the effort it took to shut down the bathhouses in SF? Why? Because the gay community could not understand the effort to save their lives....
So.... I do have respect for the majority of the readership.... however, you fail to read my posts.... it is for the few dim bulbs... that I worry - and not necessarily for them, but for what they can do to the epidemeology of the population as a whole....
it is intended as satire.
In the third paragraph the author says, "Suppose you walk into a bar and find four potential sex partners. Two are highly promiscuous; the others venture out only once a year. The promiscuous ones are, of course, more likely to be HIV-positive. That gives you a 50-50 chance of finding a relatively safe match."
Huh? There is nothing more risky in the world of HIV that being mutually monogamous with a HIV positive partner. The UCSF Safer-Sex Methods Report ( http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-07-02-02 ) says, "Current research has shifted emphasis from an explicit concern with absolute numbers of sexual partners to a model that situates an individual's selection of sexual partners in the context of the population seroprevalence, the likelihood that an individual has been tested for HIV, the likelihood that the test result was accurate, the likelihood of infection through insertive or receptive oral, vaginal, or anal sex, and the degree to which condom use reduces the probability of transmission during these acts. The model shows that individuals can reduce their risk by choosing a partner who has tested HIV negative, choosing a safer-sex act, using a condom, or some combination of these factors."
So many factors go into determining HIV risk that the simple minded statement that promiscuous potential sex partners put you at more risk than less promiscuous ones simple boggles my mind.
Much of the rest of the article builds from that false assumption and therefore has no validity. I should probably quit, but so much of the rest is so ill-informed that I can't resist sputtering some more.
Later on the article says, "If multiple partnerships save lives, then monogamy can be deadly. Imagine a country where almost all women are monogamous, while all men demand two female partners per year. Under those conditions, a few prostitutes end up servicing all the men. Before long, the prostitutes are infected; they pass the disease to the men; and the men bring it home to their monogamous wives. But if each of those monogamous wives was willing to take on one extramarital partner, the market for prostitution would die out, and the virus, unable to spread fast enough to maintain itself, might die out along with it."
Huh? This is ridiculous.
"Before long, the prostitutes are infected"? Who infected the prostitutes? Was it God because of their sins? If the men are initially disease free they can't transmit anything to the prostitutes. The most fundamental fact about STDs is that you can only get infected from an infected partner. The prostitutes can get infected ONLY if some of the men are already infected! And where did the men get infected initially? The author doesn't want to think about that.
Furthermore if the monogamous wives each took on an additional partner then you would have a network for spreading HIV similar to what exists in parts of Africa. I'm not sure that I believe the following argument either, but it has been argued that what protects Americans is that we (leaving out those of us who are hobbyists or providers for the moment) practice serial monogamy rather than having multiple partners. HIV is most highly infectious when first acquired (and very late in the course of the disease, of course). The argument is that having multiple partners allows a newly infected (and more highly infectious than he or she will be later) person to infect several other people who then pass the disease through a network of partners while they, in turn, are at their most infectious. I'm not convinced this explains why HIV spreads more rapidly through heterosexual sex in Africa than it seems to in first world countries, but I have seen the argument seriously advanced.
HIV has become endemic in the US population. It is chiefly concentrated in three groups: men who have sex with men, IV drug users who share needles, and anyone (man or woman) who has sex with anyone in the first two groups.
Does anyone (outside the far right) blame prostitutes for the spread of HIV? I haven't read any epidemiologists who do. Is the author serious? Am I an idiot for taking the article as being serious and getting upset?
-- Modified on 11/9/2007 5:08:38 AM
He's also moderately well-known for comparing John Edwards to David Duke, for criticisizing environmentalism and the move to increase the minimum wage, and for stating that people without insurance should be denied life-saving treatment.
I'm pretty sure that Jonathan Swift neverreally meant to eat those babies, but Stephen Landsburg is no Jonathan Swift.
When I first started hobbying in L.A. in the mid 80's, one of the 2 ATF's I encountered in my long hobbying career let me do FSBB-----it was truly great. However, in '85 the AIDS panic hit full bloom with the revelation that Rock Hudson had aids & she insisted we do it with a condom.( Rock was gay-------I'm straight----go figure---chicks----lol! ) Since then I've always done it with a condom. Would I shell out an extra $100 to go FSBB now ?----sure----but I would have to insist that the woman take an AIDS test before the 1st time, & I would do likewise to quell her fears---hell---MY fears------I'm a bit of a hypochrondriac.
However,all this may be a bit of overkill---studies have shown that female to hetero non IV drug using male transmission of AIDS is EXCEEDINGLY rare in the U.S.---it seems very unlikely---but would I want to chance it, even with a 1% chance---?---Hell, no-----so I'd insist on an AIDS test first.
The reason that AIDS is SO prevalent among hetero men in Africa is because VD IS SO much more rampant there-----men have open sores & lesions on their penises giving the opportunistic
AIDS infection an easy entrance point. Also,needles are in short supply in Africa ( a tragic situation), for medical purposes---the same needles are used again & again without proper sterilization, facilitating the rapid spread of AIDS.
Again, all of this is an academic exercise for me
because I know my curent ATF would NEVER go for FSBB, even with the aids testing for both of us---I wouldn't even broach the subject.
The safest two sexual demographics in the U.S. against catching AIDS are non IV drug using hetero males & lesbians---hell----maybe we hobbyists should start hitting up on hot gay chicks-----
Priapus53 makes a number of excellent points.
However, he actually overstates the AIDS risk. There was a recent post on the board that linked to a medical article. If I read it correctly, the risk of transmission of the HIV virus to a man from an INFECTED woman through ONE act of VAGINAL intercourse is about 1 in 10,000. Obviously when you multiply that by the probability that any given provider is HIV +--and of course many test themselves regularly--it becomes an extremely unlikely event.
Of course the above reasoning is counterbalanced by a) the fact hobbyists don't just stop with one visit, multiplying risk, and b) HIV is not the only STD.
Of course, this is all HYPOTHETICAL, but I appreciate Priapus' historical reminiscence. And congratulations on your 3rd decade as a hobbyist.
exactly that - MODELS. Which is why the use of them to provide predictive assurance that something either will or will not occur reaches absurd levels when people not familiar with the subject matter get involved in the interpretation of their results.
I have been called upon to look into and assess technologies that use mathematical models to look at large quantities of data.... and to date - I have found NONE that do not need someone familiar with the subject matter to tweek and fiddle with the input - output to get answers to specific questions....
and yes, if you actually read this article it is about as faulty as the models predicting Global Warming....
When did we as a nation stop reading the fine print??? just so I know...
lets face it.... most of us do not know each other - our qualifications and with the rare exception of some... really provide quick, off the cuff remarks on this board... it is what it is... but the loon who posted on the Philly board was way outta line.
I realized this thread is a question directed at the hobbyists, however I have a question for you.
Have you ever considered having your partner use the female condom? I've found that it can be a reasonable alternative that might be more comfortable for those that really despise condoms.
Also.. If you have trouble maintaining an erection with a condom it could be that you're using one that's too small. Lifestyles "Mr. Big" seem to work great.
O.k. I will answer your post in the terms you had set forth and not even bring up the "omg don't do it!" reaction.
Do I like condoms? no (but then again really have not had that much sex in the last 5+ years to determine a very good answer).
Would I pay more to not use it? no
But the real underlying thing here is the woman. If you take all your assumptions to be truth, then I think even the woman would WANT to not have a condom. Don't the women we see also get a better feel and even a rush with how things proceed (not having to stop to cover up) by not using a condom? I think it would be a total agreement by both involved that using no condom would be preferable, thus negating the "paying extra" for that situation.
Now everyone is free to flame away since I didn't even bring up the subject of all the diseases. I went ahead with the hypothetical situation in full knowledge it would never happen.
I can tell you that there are many providers in the SF Bay Area, particularly Asian ones, who will work BB. Had one of them slip me in that way - I thought she had put the cover on with her mouth which is a little trick many Asian RAs use. After a few moments I could tell it felt different, looked down and noticed what was going on. Promptly stopped the session and left. Told the PO (many times the AAMP owner or a relative) what happened and told them I'll never go back. I can't afford to bring an STD into my home.
My purely hypothetical answer is that I would prefer no condom, and no, I wouldn't pay more for BB. If all those risks didn't exist, there would be no need for condoms.
-- Modified on 11/9/2007 11:05:22 AM
part 1: Yes I strongly prefer no condom.
In the real world covered FS is what I select because the downside of most of the various STDs by far exceeds even the low odds of catching one.
Part 2: How much would I pay extra?
Were it possible to have 100% risk free BBFS I would select only providers who offered this option.
-J
but it seems to me that if all these conditions were real, you would never even find a condom.
Who would bother to make them?
with all the hypotheticals this guy outlined, condoms wouldn't exist.
First, to Nina L, thanks: you made my day by suggesting the problem was the condoms were too small. :-> Sadly, I think the diminished sensation of the condoms, while not a practical issue for me in my 20s, is more of an issue in my 50s.
Second, several have raised the perfectly understandable point that IF all the conditions of the hypothetical were valid, no one would wear condoms, so what's the point? This is why hypotheticals are never perfect. The thrust, so to speak, of this hypothetical is my desire that people assess it with no concern about STD or pregnancy. Let me flesh it out a little: you've had a vasectomy. You know pregnancy isn't an issue, but the provider doesn't take your scars as proof positive. The provider has just shown you her brand-new negative STD test, and you know you're STD negative as well, but the provider is not willing to accept your word. OK? So now we have a hypothetical where, for all practical purposes, you're EXTREMELY confident of a pregnancy and disease free encounter, but your provider prefers you wear a condom.
Now in economics they teach that everything has a price. This is simplifying matters greatly of course. But, for the sake of argument, let's say a provider was told Bill Gates wanted to have non-condom sex with her for $1M; Bill's a little geeky, not exactly into the sex scene, probably very safe. Surely someone would do it for $1M. As the old joke goes: OK, now we're just haggling over the price.
So from the limited number of people who provided answers that took the directions of the hypothetical seriously (for which I thank all of you), it seems some would pay virtually nothing extra, even though they claimed *some* preference, while others would seek only providers how offered bareback (presumably even if that involved a price premium).
I find this information very interesting and appreciate the input of all those who offered their thoughts.
-- Modified on 11/9/2007 3:48:41 PM
-- Modified on 11/9/2007 3:57:58 PM
who offered for a price exclusivity... with the proper tests and ponying up the right amount of money you could go BB with her. I will not go into details beyond that... but... even with that said... I'm not sure it is worth it for either person...
I paid a woman 250k plus living expenses to be my GF... BB was on the menu... but she lived with me... we were both tested... and it was exclusive...
so is BB worth your life? I would guess for most women it isnt...
There once was an escort from Philly
Who said, "I will ride your bare willy."
Said she with a grin
As she slid the cock in,
"Please ignore that my snatch smells like filly."
Thanks very much to r_bear11. I had wondered, purely from theoretical speculation, why no one offered this. Turns out at least someone does. A market niche, if you will. Why don't more offer it? Could be a limited demand. Could be what economists call transaction costs. This was part of the reason I raised the hypothetical question for your consideration.
Okay, if we're going to take a trip to fantasy-land, and pretend that STDs and pregnancy are not a concern, then yes, I'd go bareback. Why not? If the problem has been solved, there's no further need for condoms. The obvious question is, why is the provider still offering covered full-service at all? Would I pay more for bareback under these circumstances? Well, I suppose so, but not much. Perhaps a 20% bareback surcharge. So, since I make it a rule to never see ladies who charge more than $$$, perhaps I could be persuaded to pay as much as $$$.60 for bareback in this fantasy scenario.
It's called porn. Performers in the adult film industry are tested regularly, and many scenes are shot without condoms.
Given the same standards in the hobby world, I'd consider it, and probably pay extra for it, to some reasonable extent. The trickery here is that I don't think that testing is as regular & documented as it is in the adult film world. I know it's never come up personally when I've been screened. Until that changes, I guess we're stuck being responsible.
Little Phil makes a very important point. Outside of Gay Porn the porn industry has an amazingly low rate of STD, presumably related to strict testing. And Phil notes he might be willing to pay *something* more, but of course the devil is in the details. This is where the role of the entrepreneur comes in.
Thanks, Phil, for a great post.
I prefer bareback. End of discussion!
It's never the end, is it. I would not use condoms in a hypothetical world, and do not enjoy them in the real world, but will use them and won't pay extra to not use them.
As long as I can feel enough to finish with the cover on, it's more about the human contact for me than the penetration to completion.
In my experience, many partners have dried up when I used a condom, and stay wet when bareback, and the solution has been to use personal lubricant. It's when she's not adequately lubed that the condom seems to interfere (for me).
In Ireland we wear two condoms....just to be sure, to be sure....dontcha know!
YOu should try it....you don't feel a thing!!
During sex we take one off and become wildmen.
3 comments
1. The first question when must ask is whether "sex" with a condom is really even sex at all? It sure doesn't feel like it sometimes.
2. merely bringing up this issue inflames passions since it violates a basic tenet of political correctness in these matters that recreational sex is always Ok so long as its protected, and the risk quotient is irrelevant whether its vaginal, anal, hetero, gay, or lesbian.
3. I suspect that extremely expensive providers for example possibly like those operating out of that fantasy resort providing easter euro women in the Dominican Republic are strictly providing intercourse on a covered basis. Supposedly the girls are tested, and I wonder whether clients get to submit their recent tests also.