really shouldn't be taken seriously.

Why don't you try getting some real stats and come back when you have a clue?

The number of people infected with herpes two is about 20% in the USA  

Is this your prediction base on your perception of this lifestyle? Getting popcorn and a some bottled water.

guessing.

A bunch of nitwits on a message board for sex workers and clients will tell you whatever makes them feel happy and safe.  

On the Savage Love podcast, Dan Savage talks talks about sex in a no-holds-barred way. On episode 195, he has a fun time with Dr. Anna Kaminski from Planned Parenthood talking about a number of sex-related topics, a major one they focus on is herpes (starting in the audio at 12:02). It’s a funny and informative discussion ultimately breaking it down to the fact that herpes is simply “not a big deal.”

that sex workers are generally the safest demographic to engage with sexually. We are far more educated about safer sex than the general public. After all, our livelihoods depend on our remaining healthy. The demographics least safe to engage sexually with are civilians- over 60s and 18-24s.

It's a risk but worth it in my opinion. You might have A different risk aversion.

I'm not siding with the OP here, but arguing BS statistics with other BS statistics is not logical, nor a good way to win a debate.

But I do present compelling evidence to support my position.

It must be true.

Now that I have your attention the over 60 crowd, of which I am not a member made it through the 70s & aids infested early 80s. Combine them with active participation in this world & my bet is those survivors are safer than all demographics including sex industry workers esp those who do not test every 30 days. How many of the over 60 and 18-24 population that test every 30 through 90 days are included in your data? My guess is none.

"Early studies suggest that Canadian female prostitutes are no more likely to be infected with HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases than other women, unless they are also intravenous drug users.[4] (W Darrow. Prostitution, Intravenous Drug Use and HIV-1 in the United States. In M Plant, supra, note 1.) Studies also show that in their sexual relations, sex-trade workers use condoms more consistently than other populations similar in age, race, and sex. [5] Further, with respect to female hookers, the fact that the transmission of HIV from female to male is so difficult would suggest that the sex trade is unlikely to be a source of the spread of HIV/AIDS. Early studies of men who use female prostitutes confirm this; they did not reveal a single case in which a client was infected by a prostitute. [6] It is far more likely, particularly in the current legal context, which excludes sex-trade workers from the protection of the law, that prostitutes are at risk from their clients."

many with herpes.

here is a link to an article that discusses this.  
http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/monthly-sex-worker-tests-are-ridiculous-health-experts-say-20110530-1fctn.html

What "study" can determine what someone does in an illegal, unregulated activity, bcd?  

It states hookers are no more likely to be infected with HIV than civie women. Sarah is saying that hookers are SAFER than civie women and she added the additional MUCH safer as well.  

people make, and a potentially fatal one at that: tests are not prophylactics. Someone who is tested is no more likely to be free of STDs than someone who is not tested. The only thing a tested person can be certain of is that at the moment they were tested, their blood did or did not show evidence of an infection. It doesn't mean they do or don't have one, as some STDs can take months to incubate to a point where a test can detect them. You may have one even if your test said you didn't. In the meantime, people who get tested with no positives mistakenly think they are "clean" and can have unprotected sex with others, possibly spreading an infection they have (but which isn't showing up in a test yet).  

Data is usually used for a hypothesis.  
Where is your data to support your ... uh, hypothesis?
I'm guessing you don't have any.

She said...".....sex workers are generally the safest demographic to engage with sexually."  

By taking the hookers word for it? Do they bring the researchers to the dates? See how silly this is?

That's why none of them have kids, I mean none of you actually have children, do you?

The thing about studies regarding hookers is that not only do those studies have to take these women at their word, but these studies also fail to take into account that even if a pro uses protection 100% of the time when working, they also have lives outside of work and that includes BF's, husbands, and booty calls, just like every other woman.

As you just said, everyone here is guessing, and hookers do have  some very good reasons for lying about this. Not that they are lying, but they do have a very good financial reason to do so.

The point of mutual testing and careful screening is to have the odds in one's favor. I'll take an expensive, often tested, careful and very healthy, well reviewed-experienced lady to any demographic and Akiya's comments support industry ladies with the above qualifications are least risky partners. Maybe focus on throat cancer which may take 15 years to diagnose and is directly related to HPV and oral sex and ask yourself why you perform BBBJ and swallow possibly blood laden sperm?

SIGH!

Steph

hands. You can't worry about what others are doing. The only person's actions you have complete control over are your own.
 
Great post, Akiya!

-- Modified on 11/24/2014 12:23:50 AM

The study was done by the National Center for Biotechnology Information,  U.S. National Library of Medicine.  

Condoms can't stop herpes. It does prevent spreading of HIV and other STDs but not herpes. Herpes is spread via skin to skin contact.

because it is so prevalent in the US that by their 40's about 75% of Americans have it.

have sex with a member of the public"

I linked to could be extrapolated to the sex worker population here. But even if nobody likes that idea, I know that there was a CDC study done here in the US that comes to similar conclusions. Still trying to find the name of the study in my stuff, but I'll find it.  

using mouthwash.

HSV or HPV but an experienced sex worker will be more familiar with these two issues than a civilian, and more likely to take extra precautions or refuse to engage.

Girls have a financial interest in those cases, like in Nevada brothels that are regulated, to stay safe and get tested regularly.

Many with herpes don't know they have it, so how will you know they have it to decide not to have sex with them? Many don't have symptoms when they are "shedding" so there is no way of knowing unless you see test results of all customers.

How does that saying go? "There are lies, there are God Damn lies, and then there are statistics. " the numbers only mean something to the people doing the study. Many times government agencies do them to justify their budgets or as "proof" that they need a budget increase. There are many biases and sometimes the numbers get fudged as a means of survival by agencies that have to justify their existence. I look at statistical studies with a great deal of skepticism because many of the studies (especially ones conducted by governmental  groups)  are unscientific and nothing more than a random sample.

who has what at any given time. But we make educated decisions based on experience and knowledge. Most of the ladies here, I'd wager, would refuse to engage with someone who has signs of an STI, or at the very least suggest a safer activity to engage in. Sex workers are more likely to know what signs to look for, and believe me, I look. I don't make it obvious, but I'm fully aware of the state of the penises I choose to engage with. No- I couldn't tell if they have something that is not detectable and that's where we all take calculated risks. But still, safer to engage with a group of people who are more likely to recognize an issue than someone who is not. Right?

some studies are done in unregulated, decriminalized settings where women don't have to be tested if they don't want to be. And in that setting, rates of STIs are even lower (albeit marginally) than in regulated settings with mandatory testing. Mandatory testing has even been found to be a barrier to outreach and public health programs:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=22595

Hey!! I posted that months ago ... no fair!