I wanted to take a minute to address those of you with concerns regarding my BBFS(bareback) note I posted to the discussion board yesterday. First, it was not my intent to INSULT anybody, if I did, I sincerely apologize. Just so you understand my position…

By definition this activity we (providers & hobbyist) engage in is RISKY, covered or uncovered. But, as responsible/accountable adults we CHOSE to engage in this business regardless of the consequences (i.e., covered or uncovered). From my vantage point, it’s extremely important to know how ‘save is save’, well in my book the only real save is true ‘celibacy’; not a relationship or even a marriage is really save, as history shows.

My note was not directed at any individual, so please don’t take my note personal, it was only informational. While most of you reacted negatively, one hobbyist gave me some constructive feedback that is greatly appreciated. Next time I post to the discussion board I will be a little more sensitive.

Chow
R3  

STDs when it comes to FS. It is amusing to note that many of the same people who would never ever consider FS without a condom do not consider them necessary for BJs. True, BBFS is more dangerous than a BBBJ but it is also true that gonorrhea (for example) would spread like wildfire through BBBJs if it existed to any great degree in the population.

About a year ago, I posted an article from the Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association titled "Condoms and STI risks". I give a link to it below.

The truth of the matter is that condoms do not make you safe. They only make you safer. They reduce the frequency with which you will become infected. (Another way of saying the same thing is that they increase the mean time between infection.)

How much safer is sex with a condom? That is the $64,000 question. The conventional wisdom is that condoms increase the mean time between infection by a factor of about 20.

Condoms are very important from a public health standpoint exactly because they slow the spread of infection. For a disease to survive in a population each infected person must infect at least one other person before he (or she) either dies of the infection or is cured of the infection. Slow the spread of a disease sufficiently and the disease dies out of the population.

It is not necessary to be celibate in order to be safe. It is only necessary that your partner not be infected with anything.

If you have sex enough times with an infected partner you will become infected -- condom or no condom. It merely takes longer (20 times as long on the average for some STIs) to become infected yourself if you are using a condom.

However, there is a lot of resistance to recognizing the fact that sex with a condom is not completely safe. People prefer to believe that nothing can harm them if they are wearing a condom.

-- Modified on 9/10/2003 1:06:54 AM

Can you remember the scene in the "Deer Hunter" where they where playing Russian Roulette? That is what your playing when you want BBFS. Board opinon is so against this because we don't want to get shot by a left over bullet from a already fired gun.
As you stated there is a risk envolved in the hobby. However all of the players understand that, and to that end, you have to have certain rules. Just as society as rules, don't kill, don't rob, etc.
If you find a girl that is willing to do BBFS, she is breaking a huge rule and she can NO longer be a part of our society. Just like any civilized people rules are there for the protection of the people.
If you want BBFS then find yourself a nice monogamous nymphomaniac and settle down.

I'm always amused by these discussions, because many "hobbyists" who post here are eager for BBBJTC and Greek, which are equally if not MORE risky for the provider than is vaginal intercourse without a condum. Indeed, the single biggest reason that AIDS was originally the "Gay Plague" rather than a heterosexual problem was anal intercourse. In the US, for the first several years after HIV exploded on the scene, HIV in heterosexual female prostitutes was very UNCOMMON, and the eventual increase in prevalence was tied more to i.v. drug use than to sexual "promiscuity."

It seems obvious this board exists for the benefit of hobbyists. If we were equally concerned about the safety of the lovely ladies who sell us their services, we wouldn't be so sanguine about Greek and BBBJTC!

You state in your post:
"By definition this activity we (providers & hobbyist) engage in is RISKY, covered or uncovered."

But the real world is not this simple minded.  The choices are not risky vs. safe.  Risk can be quantified, and some behaviors (BBFS for example) are so far out there on the risk scale that no responsible provider would do this and no sane hobbyist would ask for it.

I don't think anyone was trying to do anything more than to make you aware of the risks involved in such practices.  Yes, there is a risk in everything we do in every aspect of our lives, yet no matter what the circumstance we do tend to use the necessary precautions to ensure our safety in anyway we can.  Nothing maybe 100% foolproof, but at the same token, we can reduce the risks to our safety by taking those precautions.  This is one such case in point.

Given that you are willing to take those risks, I must ask whether or not you would be responsible enough to disclose that fact to any person that you come in contact with or if you would be irresponsible and not give the other party the choice to weigh the risks of a liaison with you?  In other words, make the decision for the other party?

I have heard tale of such practices among ladies and that is a risk I am unwilling to take and would hope that an individual that does engage in such practices would disclose that to me for that puts me a further risk.  Once entered into that circle that does participate in such a manner, I would hope one would stay there.

With individuals such as yourself, it makes one wonder about the risks of a simple BBBJ.  

Lauren

The reaction to R3’s two posts regarding BBFS offers an interesting insight into the minds of both hobbyists and providers alike.  The nature of this hobby would lead one to believe that most hobbyists and providers are romantics, who view the world from the perspective of form, feeling, and abstractions.  However, the vehemence of the responses to the suggestion of BBFS, presents the traditional dichotomy of classical and romantic views of the world.  The classical view sees the underlying structure of the world, while the romantic view sees the world as it appears.   R3’s original post expressed the romantic notion that the hobbyist’s  hedonistic experience would be enhanced without the intrusion of a condom; which is a view often expressed on TER.  However, most of the posts focused on the underlying risks inherent in the notion of unprotected sex.  Focusing on the risks of the implied behavior belies the presumed hedonistic mindset of those responding to the posts: “this is risky business; I’m willing to accept certain risks; certain risks are unacceptable.”  

R3 should be forgiven for being a romantic.  If birth control isn’t an issue, none of us  would use a condom while having sex with our SO, assuming of course that neither we nor our SO knows or suspects that he/she has an STD.   And I assume that most of us believe the providers we see are not infected with an STD (would anyone knowingly have sex with a provider or hobbyist who was infected?), otherwise none of us would take the chance of DATY or BBBJ.  Which, as one post pointed out are not without risk.  So, while R3 was rightly reminded that unprotected sex carries a greater risk of exposure, the outrage with which that message was expressed seemed to me a little reactionary.

 

In June NOSC asked how often she should be tested for HIV. Risk factors have been extensively studied for HIV and at least rough estimates of the relative (and absolute) risks are known. I posted a fairly detailed HIV risk analysis in response to her question. I include a link to that response below.

In fact, it seems to me that fear has been used to market condom usage (quite effectively) and that very few people are capable of or actually swayed by an actual risk analysis. Most behavior is driven by emotion rather than logic.

I can identify with this. I recently had an episode where I urinated what looked like pure blood. I went immediately to the nearest emergency room. The doctor prescibed an antibiotic on the assumption that it was an infection (and gave me a single dose then). The next day I went to see my own doctor. After discussion with him I decided not to take the antibiotic. If it was an infection, we needed to let it come back so we could culture it and find out what it was and what the best thing to take would be. It was the best thing to do, but taking the antibiotic would have been a lot less scary than not taking it.

Incidentally, the episode did not repeat, meaning that it was not an infection. I am currently seeing an urologist. He says that blood in the urine can be due to about 200 different things and that three of them are serious. We are going to do the tests to find out exactly what the problem is.

If I had simply gone with the fear I would have taken the antibiotic and I would have assumed that it cured the problem when I didn't have any more bleeding.

And, no, I haven't engaged in this hobby since the bleeding episode occurred. I wouldn't expose anyone else to an unknown risk (and it also amazing how much the sex drive is reduced when you are afraid that your urine is going to come out bright red). And, yes, it is time to go back to the AIM clinic for a complete STD testing just to be absolutely sure there isn't a STD involved in this somewhere even though that appears to be extremely unlikely.





-- Modified on 9/10/2003 1:21:56 PM

Your ER Doc should be reprimanded, at the least. It is very easy do get a culture before starting on antibiotics. When the culture comes back you can make sure you are on the appropriate abx. A UTI is not the first thing you think of with hematuria, kidney stones are far more likely.

long enough for you to get to your own doctor. My doctor sent me to the urologist. The first test the urologist ordered (to be done this Friday) is a CAT scan to check for kidney stones.

I shudder to think what life would be like without health insurance. The conservatives on this board may disagree, but I am strongly in favor of universal health care and probably a single-payer system similar to Canada. No system is perfect, but the number of people without health care in this country is a scandal.

OK, I will relinquish the soapbox.

I guess I just took that for granted in my first post, so I'm glad you brought up the subject.  However, even with Greek, the risk of transmitting anything is dramatically reduced with the use of a condom.  Of course by definition using a condom is impossible with BBBJ (TC or not).

"The lovely ladies who sell us their services" are adults entitled to choose their own risk tolerance, or comfort zones, or whatever else one likes to call it.  One of the few things that really make me lose my temper on these boards is when the pressure lobby for BBBJ goes into full swing.

The reaction is what I would expect from a community perspective.  BBFS is bad for the community so it must be publicly condemned despite the fact that some may privately practice it or be open to it under certain conditions.  Though I enjoy BBBJ, I've never done BBFS with a provider and wouldn't like it anyway because I'd be too busy worrying.

cheers,
cy