It has been a long time since I have posted and it is nice to see that some long term members are still around. I haven't really contributed much in the past several months for not wanting to be redundant, primarily due to the fact that I find as more things change around here the more they remain the same(or however that cliche goes.) The risks of a bbbj is one of those topics that has been questioned on and off for over three years (and I suspect that if this board is still here three years from now this question will be raised by others.)

As I have stated in the past, if you are one of those who participate in the 'girl friend experience' type of behavior, why is there a need to use a condom for intercourse. Once you eat pussy, french kiss and then receive head, you have taken part in the sucessful transfer of whatever bacteria was inside her vagina to your penis. Your cock is now [tongue]bathed in her secretions. It is the same if she fingers herself(nice visual) and then rubs her hand all over your cock. Your cock is now coated in her secretions, and the fact is either you have harmless bacteria all over your cock or you have just been infected, so why is their a need for any protection after that? From the lady's perspective, if you don't mind having her vaginal secetions all over your genitals it's really no sweat off her ass, but there is no way that she will allow your secretions in her pussy. Why do you think that is? From the male perspective, I raise the question again, are condoms always necessary?

In order for the fantasy of having an escort seem like a girlfriend to really work, some people may have have different requirements and needs. I am not making any value judgements of what is or isn't acceptable behavior or those who live in a fantasy. I have intentionally framed my inquiry so as not to disclose my particular preferences.

I am one of those who participate in the 'girl friend experience' type of behavior, I agree with your comments especially the one that say "Once you eat pussy, french kiss and then receive head" Why the condom. Yes comdon are necessary if you are doing full service. Everything else you mention for those of us that do love to try the extra activities we all need to make sure that the person we are seening are as clean and safe as we are. But we all know and need to stop the BS and admit that anything can happen and we better make sure before we put our tongue anywhere that it is a safe shelter. I perfer the married professional upscale clientel business type and leave the bargin hunter alone. I tell myself everyday that they are not picking up the drug infested, unclean,low discounted anybody girl and street walker I just want to F--k anybody. So I feel safe when they screen me as I screen them. In my mind I sike myself to beleive that they are more likly keeping up with their regular testing....JUST as I.... BTW I use the LifeStyles lubricated Latex- regular and the color one's and keep plenty on hand for extra activities. Talk about a nice naked feeling they tastes great. Comdon is a safe way of staying out of trouble. Better be safe then sorry. You watch my back and I will watch your.

P.S. For those who want to try me without a condom...Stay away.



-- Modified on 8/6/2002 2:28:47 PM

eom

Let us assume that you start out with a screening at a clinic so that you know that you are not infected with anything. Then after n1 dates the probability (p1) that you are infected with a STI (according to the model presented in my posts below) is:

  p1 := 1 - (1 - r * f * inf) ^ n1

and the probability that you will infect a regular with whom you have n2 dates in the same period is less than p2 as given by:

  p2 := 1 - (1 - p1 * f * inf) ^ n2

where:

  r is the infection rate in the general population
  f is the per-episode probability of condom failure
  inf is the infectivity of the STI

I assume that the regular is not infected and does not increase your risk. Note that the value of f is 1.0 if no condom is used.

I decided to run some sample numbers for myself. I was just tested. I plan on being tested again in 6 months. In that 6 months I might see my most frequent regular 4 times. I might have a maximum of 20 other dates. It will probably be less, but I want a worse case analysis and will use 20.

Let us do HIV first.

inf = 0.001
f = 0.15 (according to the Haiti study) if a condom is used
r = 0.01 (actually I think it is less in the U.S.)

If a condom is used on all dates we have:
p1 = 0.000030
p2 = 0.000000018

I never ask a lady to do anything that she is not comfortable doing and my regular always requires a condom for FS. However, let us suppose that I never use a condom on any of my other 20 dates (unlikely, but a worst case as far as my regular is concerned). Then we have:
p1 = 0.00020
p2 = 0.00000012

I am very unlikely to become HIV positive and extremely unlikely to transmit it to my regular if I am screened every six months regardless of whether or not a condom is used on my other dates.

Syphilis is not as clear cut.

inf = 0.30
f = 0.03 if a condom is used
r = 0.01 (Actually I haven't a clue as to what this number should be -- I will assume that is is about the same as for HIV.)

If a condom is used on all dates we have:
p1 = 0.00180
p2 = 0.0000647

As I said above, I never ask a lady to do anything that she is not comfortable doing and my regular always requires a condom for FS. However, let us suppose that I never use a condom on any of my other 20 dates (unlikely, but a worst case as far as my regular is concerned). Then we have:
p1 = 0.0583
p2 = 0.0021

My regular runs a very low risk as long as she requires a condom and I get tested every six months. However, if nobody except my regular was requiring a condom I would run a risk for syphilis that is high enough that I would be uncomfortable.

Condoms reduce risk. They do not eliminate it. For this reason I am neutral about condoms. (I broke my back years ago and it has significantly reduced sensation in my penis. With a condom I know that I am at less risk but I don't feel anything at all which takes some of the fun out of the experience.)

As I said in a previous thread I have become a strong adocate of frequent screening. It protects your partner and allows you to cure almost anything you might catch with the exception of HIV, which fortunately is a very very low risk.

But it's way too late. As you said, we've been over this. Crack a book, why don't ya?

FS is a lot different than any of those other activities. The genitalia are covered by very thin, porous skin layers that are filled with the highest concentration of unfiltered blood vessels which erupt during intercourse. It's not just the swapping of fluids, and there are no antibacteria, as you might find in saliva, and no extra skin layers of protection.

All those other activities are low-risk by comparison.

Use a condom.

All respect,
riker

If I'm reading your formulas correctly, the conclusion would be that frequent testing (at least twice a year) reduces the risks far more than using a condom.

Tell me, Professor, did I get it right?

The question is, "How safe is safe enough?" Obviously, using a condom plus being tested frequently is safer than either alone.

Adult film performers are tested once a month. Bordello workers in Nevada are tested once a week for all STIs except HIV and once a month for HIV. At least this is what I think I remember hearing. How frequently you should be tested for the safety of others depends on the frequency with which you are having sex. I would suggest that most escorts should be tested at about the same frequency as adult film performers, i.e., once a month. Most clients have sex far less often than most escorts. (My guess is that it takes about 20 clients to support one escort.) My personal feeling is that once a quarter is about right for a "frequent" hobbyist and every six months feels about right for a "less frequent" hobbyist such as myself.

FS is, as a number of posts point out, the most dangerous act. Receptive vaginal sex is probably about 10 times as dangerous as receptive fellatio. However, the risk in giving a BBBJ is not negligible for some STIs. The January issue of Sexually Transmitted Diseases had an article about the oral transmission of gonorrhea in Singapore that was truly scary.

Covered FS is safer than BBFS. A covered BJ is safer than a BBBJ. There may even by some risk to DATY without using a barrier such as a dental dam. Safest is to have no skin-to-skin contact or contact with the other person's bodily fluids. A full body condom that you don before having any physical contact would be a good idea if you really want to be safe.

How safe is safe enough? Covered sex is less pleasurable than uncovered sex. The more activites that are covered the greater the safety and the less the pleasure.

I think each person (each couple, actually) has to find the balance that they are confortable with when it comes to covered activities.

However, I do feel that there is no excuse for not being screened for STIs on a regular basis to protect your partner.

There is also, in my opinion, no excuse for not getting vaccinated against Hepatitis A and B if you are sexually active.

While I have every respect and love to the gents of this hobby.... When I see the statement "Regular screening reduces the risk of getting an STI" I want to just scream. Checking on the horse every ten minutes won't stop it from leaving the barn if you leave the door opened.  It just won't get as far.

You know... I have gentleman that can't figure out how to unblock their numbers or click a link to go to a website or review.  Said guys also like to tell me things they have read off the internet as concrete fact.  

Happily they rarely make it past my screening ... BUT... they make it past someone elses...  

The fact is that the risk of the big diseases being contracted by oral are low... not non exsistant but low.  The lesser (ie curable) such as gonherrea and chlymidia are a little higher but still pretty low.  The saliva in your mouth is meant to kill as much as possible and stomach fluids as well.... if there is a question wrap it!  

BUT to say that FS after these activities can be done because of the whole "been there done that" mentality is just ludicrous.  That is like saying... "I lit the bombs fuse because well I had been playing with matches earlier..."  When your numbers increase SO dramatically you would be a fool to take the risk.

And even condoms are no guarentee....they merely put the risk back down to acceptable levels.

And I notice that anal activities weren't even mentioned in any posts to this... I suppose that is just as no holds barred as FS?

I know most are level headed and/or paranoid enough to disregard this laisse-faire attitude towards condoms but for those few of you out there that think it sounds like sound logic... THINK AGAIN!  Riker was right on... ALWAYS REQUIRED!

Gods protect us from the reckless!
Rebecca


-- Modified on 8/6/2002 8:10:44 PM

receptive vaginal sex which in turn is probably about 10 times as dangerous as receptive fellatio.

From the man's standpoint insertive anal sex is probably about 30% more dangerous than insertive vaginal sex which in turn is probably about 10 times as dangerous as insertive fellatio.

Note that fellatio is probably about twice as dangerous for the woman as the man.

These numbers are from a study from researchers at the Centers for Disease Control ("Reducing the Risk of Sexual HIV Transmission", Varghese et al., Sexually Transmitted Diseases, January 2002).

Personally, I've never done anal sex. Not being bisexual or gay I'm unlikely to ever do receptive anal sex (although I must admit that some ladies have had their fingers and/or tongues in there). If I ever do insertive anal sex I will insist on a condom. I admit that anal sex is one act I wouldn't consider without a condom.

reduce the risk of getting a STI. However, if you become infected regular testing WILL reduce the risk of passing the STI to someone else. I am assuming, of course, that you behave in a responsible manner if you find that you are infected.

Of course it is possible to become infected the day after you have your test. However, all other things being equal, a person with a recent screening is much less likely to be infected than one who has never had a test.

I believe that regular testing is required to protect others. Many STIs do not have early symptoms. If you wait until you have symptoms to be tested you are potentially endangering others.

If this is faulty logic why do both the adult film industry and the state of Nevada require regular testing for legal sex workers?









-- Modified on 8/6/2002 10:44:08 PM

YES it is necessary....

But once infected...well IMHO if you find yourself such... time to find another profession if it is one of the incurable strains.  At the bare minimum take time off and deal with the medical cycle if one of the lesser group.

I get tested monthly. My doctor knows what I do and so runs the full gammit.  I go in even with cold symptoms... (Having no health insurance this is getting costly!  LOL No wonder we charge so much!) I have NEVER had an STD or even a UTI.  Judgement and latex are what allow me to keep saying that... both are faulty but by far the best tools out there.

But you have to be just as responisble when you inform on these issues... because someone somewhere will take it as the gods honest and ONLY truth.

Be good to each other...
Rebecca

rebecca is right. it really is startling to see all this information thrown around by people who draw unsupported conclusions from it.

getting yourself tested regularly is completely inadequate to prevent you from infecting another person -- for many diseases, you can be infectious before you test positive, and the tests can show you are not infected, when you are. testing is most useful to identify asymptomatic diseases, so that you can treat them before they do any more damage.

the main thing to remember about *all* actuarial or probabilistic information is that it's usually wrong. it gives a specific estimate for a risk, when the real world risk is fuzzy. what is the risk for lung cancer if you smoke? whatever number you hear, it's the wrong one *for you* -- it depends a lot on how often and how deeply you smoke, the kind of cigarets you smoke, your genetic predisposition to cancer, your lifestyle and diet, other drugs or alcohol you take ... the actuarial number can't inform you about *your* specific risk! get over it!

people focus on prophyactics and specific sex acts, but don't focus on the *sex partner*. screen that lady! look her over! talk to her! the safe partners are centered, aware, and smart. you can tell in a few moments of chat with her. she wants to stay alive, she likes what she does, and if you do as she shows, you'll have a fabulous time.

the usual rule is: pleasure increases risk ... it's the fundamental law of sex. the more aroused, delighted, ravished, swept away you feel, the greater the risk you've just experienced ... our biology is just made so that whatever is juicier and warmer and lasts longer is more arousing -- and also more infectious. so *your* problem as a client is: pleasure impairs judgment. the riskier things get, the less likely *you* are to make the right choice. at some point, you don't care anymore if it's risky or not, and that's when all the actuarial information is worthless to you. you're just rolling the dice.

but the really great providers can do something amazing: they can make less risk seem like more pleasure. her skill is in making you feel like you had a wetter, warmer and more mind blowing experience than you actually did. she acts hot, but keeps her cool. all the pleasure, but less of the risk. find those women, they are *good* for you ... and, with them you can have that most pleasurable experience of all: you can lose your head -- she's the designated driver!

and always ask, risk *of what*? the risk of contracting incurable and potentially fatal hiv is of a completely different kind than the risk of getting annoying but easily treatable gonorrhea. it doesn't matter what "the number" is. i can't believe that people dismiss hiv as a serious consideration, just because transmission is so unlikely. yes, unlikely -- but potentially disastrous when it happens.

-- Modified on 8/6/2002 11:18:51 PM

I have to respond to this post-do you as men or even humans have that little respect about your body to even want to participate in any unprotected activity with a woman who provides sexual services to many different men for a living?  So basically if a women has given you unprotected services, and many other men at that basically you are ALL sharing bacteria-you learn that in sex ed.  So all you unsafe participants keep being nasty and I just hope you dont catch any diseases or HIV-WAKE UP PEOPLE-ITS 2002

Point 1)
Saliva does NOT transmit HIV.

Point 2) How many lesbians have you heard of contracting HIV from giving each other oral, hmmmmm??? There's a REASON that this was originally thought to be a homosexual disease.  (Obviously, you don't want to go down on a lady who is menstruating. Duh.)

Thus... you have not, up until the point of intercourse, exchanged any really high risk secretions. Low risk yes, there is risk in everything, but it's VERY low risk. Now of course a condom might not matter to YOU for intercourse because unless you have a scratch or open sore of some kind on your penis, there's a very very low chance for you to catch something from us. For us, however, the risk is much, much, infinitely higher!!!!

I repeat, are you NUTS????
Please keep your condomless self to yourself =:O

Nicole

I agree with you 100%

It appears that my original post may not have been interpreted by some of you as it was intended; for which I apologize for any miscommunication.

The basic point I was attempting to make was: that if men allow any vaginal secretions to come in direct contact with the penis, especially the slit at the tip, the risk of being exposed to some infection is far greater than many "gfe fantasy-fueled" gentleman wish or want to believe. The operative words being - far greater. In fact the risk may not be that much less than unprotected intercourse. Some gentleman in pursuit of this passsion-filled fantasy will tell you that if a lady takes her dripping wet hand from her vagina and then rubs it all over his uncovered penis that it is low risk. My response to that is, I wonder if the individual who thinks that way would allow that type of sexual behavior if he knew in fact that the lady indeed had an infectious disease. Low risk, right?

I spoke to my health care provider about this subject specifically quite a while ago and was informed that there is a significant level of risk to men of contracting a communicable disease if the unprotected penis comes into contact with vaginal secretions. The risk assessment is based soley on the penis coming into contact with vaginal secretions, not differentiating the various ways this could be accomplished.

***SPECIAL RESPONSE TO DMAN and NICOLE***

DMAN-- I am not a moron. Although I am not advocating any particular position, there are some people however that believe that anybody who has any type of unprotected sex(which you do)is a moron. Are you a moron?

NICOLE- I am not nuts. I believe that having vaginal secretions on the penis(whether it gets there by mouth, hand or pussy) is of greater risk than many people want to believe. If you don't think saliva transmits hiv I guess the next time someone comes on your body and wants to lick it all off of you and then without swallowing wants to give you head, you wouldn't have a problem with that? I don't believe vaginal secretions belong on a penis or sperm on a pussy. And when you posted that "there is a very very low chance for you to catch something from us" Sure thing- after fucking hundreds of guys a year. Are you nuts?

Hi Vianca,
Nice site..girl friend..No shame to your game...Just a method to your madness...I thought I was a wild girl..You got me beat...

Mabe one day we will meet

Ruth

-- Modified on 8/8/2002 12:36:29 AM

-- Modified on 8/7/2002 11:37:39 PM

The question is, "How safe is safe enough?" Obviously, using a condom plus being tested frequently is safer than either alone.

Thanks Riker, thats the best laugh I've had all day.