One time I was with a provider at an AMP and was curious if they would have sex without the condom.  I have NEVER done it, but was curious. So I told the girl I didn't want to use one.  She was reluctant at first, but then said "ok, just no cum inside, cum outside...ok"  I said "ok".  She got on her back, ready for missionary and opened her legs.  I was right in front of her, my cock ready to go, I lined it up on her and acted as if I was preparing to slide it in her.  She said nothing.  (oh..it was so tempting..."  anyway, I then said "no I'll use one" and took out my own which I always bring.  It just made me somewhat amazed that there are providers out there who will go without a condom.  I wonder if at the AMPs where the providers are unsophisticated/young/naive and don't really get the whole STD/AIDS thing..maybe it's more common.  I would think a professional provider would absolutely refuse regardless of how much money you throw at them...

anyway, have any of you had this offered?  have any of you gone for it and gone at it without the condom?  I would think afterward..you would feel super stupid and worried...

would you see a provider if you knew she did condomless sex with some customers.  I have to believe that there are some guys who WILL go condomless and just don't care or don't know what they are doing...I wonder if you might think they are more likely to be "diseased" and then you would not want to be with them, even with a condom....

*always* assume the minx has gone bareback with *somebody* -- boyfriend, player, rapist, whomever. it's probably close to the truth, especially if she's younger, and it's safer for you.

if a minx is willing to go bareback *with you,* then you have to assume she's willing to do it with *most* of her clients, because, well, basic rule of sociology: people treat all casual acquaintances pretty much the same.

all the things that might induce her to agree with your request -- she's stupid, young, hard up for cash, naive, thinks it can't happen to her, coked out, whatever -- will also bring her in contact with similarly inclined players, that is, the high risk rovers.

if a minx gave me a 20 minute bbbj, was sopping wet and begged me to do her skinless, would i? IN A SECOND! yes, when my meat is in heat, it knows no retreat.

never done it, though. why? because i screen my minxes carefully to make sure they are alert, frisky, love their life, use their heads, and are the designated driver -- so would never put the option to me.

-- Modified on 8/14/2002 10:59:07 PM

I actually once met a provider and I must say I was under the influence and when we went to do the deed she said she didn't want to use one, at the time I was into it, the next day I was scared! I immediately got tested and have never repeated the nasty with a provider without protection. By the way, I had a clean bill of health, thank god.

What difference does it make,,,it appears most guys will dine at the Y or accept a bbbj without any concerns; so whats the difference going condomless?

I think recently the practice of BBFS has been quite prevalent at least in the N/NJ area. It is however not accurate to assume that "if she does it with me she will do it with everybody". Q

"if a minx is willing to go bareback *with you,* then you have to assume she's willing to do it with *most* of her clients."

didn't say "will do it with everybody."

for the lady this isn't first love, it's daily business.

-- Modified on 8/15/2002 5:45:11 PM

Was with a provider once who covered me for the first go round, but wanted more.  I couldn't get her off by hand or DATY, and she said she needed a cock...and it needed to be bare.  I went for it with some fear, and withdrew early and couldn't finish. "Why'd you pull out?"  I said I wanted to cum outside her, but gave up the effort.  I didn't see her again, and she was heading for England anyway.  Yep...it was dumb.

I have no interest in getting into this "FS without a condom discussion again." It's been done to death. But obviously some of you refuse to pay attention. BBBJ is far less risky than coverless FS.

Don't be an idiot. Start paying attention.

I had the same thing happen with a highly-rated provider on this board.  It was a little more subtle than that, but basically the same drill.  She grabbed my schlong and put it inside her, bare.  I sort of gave her a surprised look and she asked "is anything wrong".  I said no, and she rode me a minute or so that way -- I suppose I could have came right then, but I didn't.

At the time, I was in my "more wreckless" mode, so it really didn't bother me.  I was being tested on a regular basis anyway, so I didn't have to go out of my way to do a status check after the session.  I ended up not catching anything then, but a few months later I got some sort of non-specific, non-painful (it only dripped), but hard-to-eliminate UTI after getting a BBBJ from a different provider -- go figure.


-- Modified on 8/15/2002 3:57:57 PM

Yes, a BJ is safer than FS. Covered is safer than uncovered. Safer is not the same as safe, however. Using condoms does not guarantee safety and failing to use condoms does not guarantee instant death. A condom does reduce the frequency of infection. Stated another way it increases the mean time between infections – that and nothing more.

I’m old enough to remember sex in the early 1980’s. In my experience nobody back then used condoms. The obvious reason for the change in attitude since then is HIV and I will limit myself to HIV for the rest of this analysis. However, you should remember that other common STIs are 200 to 700 times more infectious than HIV so the numbers apply only to HIV.

Basically, HIV has changed having sex into a kind of Russian Roulette.

There are two questions: (1) Is there a bullet in one of the chambers of the cylinder of the revolver? And (2) If there is, or might be, a bullet in one of the chambers, how many chambers are there in the revolver’s cylinder (i.e., what is my risk of dying when I spin the cylinder and pull the trigger)?

If your partner isn’t infected with HIV the gun is empty. You can spin the cylinder and pull the trigger all you want and you aren’t going to die. This is why I have become a missionary for routine STI testing. (I go to the AIM clinic in Los Angeles.) No, the tests aren’t perfect, false negatives and false positives exist, but I have become convinced that the tests are pretty darn good. No, the tests don’t protect you, but if you are responsible in your behavior they protect everybody else. And your partner’s tests protect you. If we all get tested on a regular basis we certainly can reduce the incidence of HIV (and other STIs) in the population and that protects everyone.

Right now the incidence of HIV in the heterosexual population is estimated to be under 1% which means that if you don’t know your partner’s HIV status there is about 1 chance in 100 that the gun is loaded.

Let’s assume that your partner is HIV positive. If you are male the chance that you will become infected in a single act of uncovered sexual intercourse is about 1 in 1000. (If you are female and your partner is infected the odds are estimated at being about 1 in 500.)  The other way of saying this is that the mean time to infection is 1000 acts of sexual intercourse. Or to pursue the Russian Roulette analogy, the cylinder of the revolver has 1000 chambers.

Note that a BJ is about 10 times less risky (i.e., the cylinder has 10,000 chambers).

Now, the $64,000 question is “How does wearing a condom affect the odds?”

I wish I knew the answer to that one. Most authorities assume that if the condom doesn’t break or slip that you are completely safe. A study (which I unfortunately can’t locate) done at the Mustang Ranch in Nevada indicates that with experienced users the condom failure rate may be as low as 1%. A study that I cited in an earlier post used 3%. Most authorities use 5% for the general population. However, a very disturbing study I have cited (the couples study done in Haiti) puts the effective failure rate at 15%. Put in other words the infection rate of couples not using condoms was 6.8 times the infection rate of couples using condoms consistently and correctly.

Take your pick. Condoms increase the mean time to infection by somewhere between 6.8 and 100 times. Or to go back to the Russian Roulette analogy, if you are having sexual intercourse with a condom the gun has 6,800 chambers to 100,000 chambers in the cylinder (for a male – half that number for a lady). Very unlikely, but not impossible, that when you pull the trigger you are going to die if one of those chambers is loaded.

How safe is safe enough? Consider a lady who plans on working 20 years and expects to have intercourse 500 times a year and wants to keep her lifetime risk of becoming HIV positive under 1%. She needs to keep the risk of becoming infected with any given sex act to less than 1 in 1,000,000. Given the current heterosexual infection rate of about 1% having sex without a condom with a partner who has an unknown HIV status is about 20 times too risky and giving a BBBJ is too risky by a factor of 2 but covered FS is acceptable if you assume that condoms reduce the risk by a factor of 20. If condoms only reduce the risk by a factor of 7 they aren’t safe enough to allow having sex 10,000 times with persons of unknown HIV status unless you are willing to accept more than a 1% chance of becoming infected.

Of course, if you are 65 like me and figure that you’ve only got another 5 years left to enjoy yourself and expect to have sex less than 50 times a year you are looking at less than 250 acts of sex. The risk calculation comes out somewhat differently when you are looking at 250 spins of the cylinder instead of 10,000 (plus the male risk is about half the female risk per spin anyway).

I would like to add that there is risk just sitting at your computer reading the messages on TER. I don’t know how many of you know this but we came very close to having a very bad day on June 14. Not as bad as the dinosaurs had 65 million years ago, but pretty bad. On June 14 an asteroid missed the earth by only 75,000 miles. It is the closest miss since 1994 and only the fifth time an object is known to have passed inside the orbit of the moon since the near earth asteroid detection program began. Most disturbing is that the object wasn’t even detected until June 17 – three days after closest approach. (It approached from the direction of the sun.) It wasn’t a large object as these things go. It was only about 100 meters in diameter. It wouldn’t have caused a disaster of global proportions. However, it would have been in the same league as the object that flattened 1200 square miles of forest in Siberia in 1908.


-- Modified on 8/15/2002 10:43:02 PM

Mathesar,

I appreciate the leg work.. could you just link it?.. we have covered it... over and OVER!  

And for what it is worth it sounds as tho you are purporting "condomlessness" due to low risk and ongoing testing.

And that is just plain bad news!  Just because hobbyists stand half the chance of providers... And if everyone gets tested that is lower still... NOT AN EXCUSE.

Please PLEASE... either get your MD or stop discoursing on this subject.  

Because you are VERY high risk!  (Slaps big MR YUCK STICKER ON MATHESAR'S FOREHEAD!)

EVERYONE ELSE! Drollere is right.  If she doesn't care enough about her self (with double the risk, right Mathesar?)to use a condom you are out of your F*CKING MIND! to even walk through her door.

Flame away... *I* will be alive to hear it.

Rebecca


-- Modified on 8/16/2002 2:01:45 AM

-- Modified on 8/16/2002 2:02:17 AM

-- Modified on 8/16/2002 2:05:55 AM

You might also want to read the book "The Polar Bear Strategy: Reflections on Risk in Modern Life" by John F. Ross, Perseus Books (see link below).


-- Modified on 8/16/2002 1:57:45 PM

The BBFS thing/disease hysteria is way overrated IMO. It happens a lot more often that you think for a number of reasons.

For volume providers, such as MP girls, they don't like dragging latex either, and they have to do it upwards of 10x a day. Why do you think a few of them stuff half a tube of KY inside themselves before the session?

A lot of women, pro or not, feel duty bound to take care of their man, even if the relationship is on the clock. The way I see it, they're in most cases doing you a favor.

Some escorts I know will do BBFS with regulars. I think with the escorts, the session is longer and the connection greater. It's more about the connection and relationship than the favor.

The only problem I see in all of this is for the married guys-while the provider may be doing you a favor, you're not doing one for your s.o., and therein I think lies the rub and the drama.

-- Modified on 8/16/2002 7:47:06 PM