For the Love Goddess
Hi LG - Ive been hobbying for a year or so, saw 8 girls,  and had a scare, got tested for STDs and came back clean but now Im a bit scared to go back out - feel I dodged a bullet, was terrified that i would have to tell my wife that I had an STD (she would dump me quick)
Question is how realistic are my fears if I practice safe sex and go with reputable providers? I admit I like and want BBBJs but all else would be "safe" ....but can u give me any clue as to what amount of risk I am actually taking on in any given encounter or over a period of 5-10 providers/ncounters?
Thanks and keep up your fine column - you're the best!

Dear norton789103,

I'm actually surprised you're asking this, considering that you had a battery of STD tests and were surely informed by pamphlets or live discussions at the time...or? In any case, anyone purporting to give you any reliable clue as to "what amount of risk you're actually taking on in any given encounter" is not factual and should not be giving advice. The reason is NO ONE KNOWS. Reputable or not - they are still sex workers and are at a higher risk than nuns *just had to insert some levity here.*  

You should inform yourself of all STD risks and then assess your own risk tolerance. Click on the link, read up on every STD and make up your own mind. I can tell you from my study of TER hobbyists (final results coming out next year) that CBJ is more frequent in this population than BBBJ - by and large, TER members are playing it safe, it seems. Ergo, the more covered, the less risk. And for no risk at all - abstinence or 100% monogamy with someone equally dedicated is it.

No guarantees - remember the thread about the "reputable provider" who allegedly gave someone syphilis during "safe sex" not too long ago?

I rest my case,
The Love Goddess



-- Modified on 12/9/2009 6:33:32 PM

I would go as far to say that the likeliness of getting an STD from a provider is about the same as you'd get from a regular one night stand.

Although this might sound pretentious, I typically avoid providers that have half hour rates or very low rates.  I don't want to see a woman who is a "drive-through" provider who sees 5 people a day or more.  I would think also that clients who have the kind of money to spend on a mid to higher-end provider also are more cautious about their health, and statistically are likely to have better healthcare access.  These thoughts of mine could be nothing more than conjecture, but it seems more like a numbers game.  The more people you come in contact with, the more likely (statistically) you are to contract a disease, regardless if it's H1N1 or herpes.

Granted, STD's are not exclusive to those who lack money.  That would be a stupid assertion. Also, PROPERLY using protection will drastically lower your chances.  There are STD's that a condom can't protect you from, though, such as herpes and HPV/genital warts.  Unfortunately, neither of those you can get rid of or always detect on the person you are having the encounter with.  Plainly put, if the risk is not worth it to you, then you should not hobby.  There is nothing safer than a monogamous relationship or abstinence altogether.  Personally, neither of those are very fun, but neither is genital warts or something far worse.

So since you first of all do not see clients and you are one, you have  no clue really who is safer and who  is not. I think you are projecting here.

I have had many very safe clean and healthy Gentlemen who are certain not to question safe sex practices in a session who are not rich, just the average Joe.

I have also had to give warnings about questionable behavior to guys trying too slip off condoms and trying to be shady about safe sex to a few very VERY wealthy guys.

their financial status is not really a reason to assume someone is safe healthy or plays safe. Or that he is a Gentleman. There are plenty of rich asshole out there who think their money gives them "special" privledges.

I have had less friction over safe sex issues with the average guy.

I think you may have interpreted what I was getting at incorrectly.  I'm certainly not saying that those who have more disposable income is the sole criterion of my assertions.  There are of course plenty of rich jerks who don't care and feel their money makes them invincible from STDs and makes them entitled to whatever they want.

My assertion was simply that providers who charge little more than a typical street walker are more likely to attract clients who care less about their health than a person who has more disposable income.  A lot of factors come into play with that; such as education about STDs, perhaps they feel they have nothing to lose, etc.  The rate of diseases in the lower earning bracket of society is an unfortunate statistic.  Access to quality healthcare is a huge barrier, and someone who doesn't have that access are far less likely to get an STD treated properly than someone who would fall into the middle to upperclass, thus increasing their potential to spread those diseases to those they have sexual contact with.  Providers that charge smaller amounts for their services are more likely to have contact with this section of society which puts them at higher risk for becoming victims of STD's, which then translates to spreading them further.

My though process is not a rule, but a generalization based on pure statistics.  I think the numbers speak for themselves when you look at the STD rates of street walkers vs. those of higher priced courtesans.  There area always exceptions to a rule, of course.  No theory is perfect.