Hi,

Could you please tell me what is considered as safe sex practice if some one has more than one sex partner?
Is using good quality condom provides 100 % safety against STDs and AIDS?

Please help me by answering my questions.

Thanks,
Tom

Dear tom_tom08,

First of all, despite what anyone may tell you, "safe sex practice" is in the eyes of the beholder. Having said that, I think we can all agree on one thing: the exchange of bodily fluids is considered "unsafe." And as such, yes, a good quality condom provides SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED TRANSMISSION against STDs and the HIV virus. This means that you use a new condom for each sexual encounter and use it CORRECTLY. As to AIDS, remember that Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome is the immune disorder that develops from contracting the HIV virus. There are some individuals who have contracted HIV and have not developed AIDS, so we should not leap to conclusions here either. And of course, HIV is not the only thing to worry about. HPV, herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, crabs, scabies...the list is long and quite alarming.

The other thing we can and should all agree on is that 100% safety is encountered in abstinence. If you do not engage in sexual practices, you will be 100% safe.

Your best bet is to inform yourself and then analyze your risk tolerance. You could start by going to the website linked to this posting.

My advice to anyone playing in this field: if you are risk-averse, find another hobby.

Have a safe day,
the Love Goddess

LG - Not sure if this is the right place to post this but somewhat related.  What is the typical incubation period required before certain STDs show up on a screening test?  Curious as to how long one should wait after an encounter before getting tested across the board for stds
(Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, genital herpes, hepatitis B and hepatitis C etc...)

Thank you.

from the Related Link.

---------------------
Sexually transmitted diseases (also called STDs or STIs -- sexually transmitted infections) are infections that can be transferred from one person to another through sexual contact. According to the Centers for Disease Control there are over 15 million cases of sexually transmitted disease cases reported annually. Adolescents and young adults (15-24) are the age groups at the greatest risk for acquiring an STD, 3 million becoming infected each year.

Most STDs are treatable. However, even the once easily cured gonorrhea has become resistant to many of the older traditional antibiotics. Other STDs, such as herpes, AIDS, and genital warts, all of which are caused by viruses, have no cure. Some of these infections are very uncomfortable, while others can be deadly. Syphilis, AIDS, genital warts, herpes, hepatitis, and even gonorrhea have all been known to cause death. Many STDs can lead to related conditions such as pelvic inflammatory disease, cervical cancer, and complications in pregnancy. Therefore, education about these diseases and prevention is important.

It is important to recognize that sexual contact includes more than just intercourse. Sexual contact includes kissing, oral-genital contact, and the use of sexual "toys," such as vibrators. There really is no such thing as "safe" sex. The only truly safe sex is abstinence. Sex in the context of a monogamous relationship where neither party is infected with a STD is also considered "safe". Most people think that kissing is a safe activity. Unfortunately, syphilis, herpes, and other diseases can be contracted through this apparently harmless act. All other forms of sexual contact also carry some risk. Condoms are commonly thought to protect against STDs. Condoms are useful in helping to prevent certain diseases, such as HIV and gonorrhea. However, they are less effective protecting against herpes, trichomoniasis, and chlamydia. Condoms provide little protection against HPV, the cause of genital warts.

If you think you may have an STD or a related condition, see a doctor right away.
---------------------

So even if we've only kissed, this is basically saying we're all dead or infected.

That is one of the reasons I favor reqular testing for the common STDs. One can't spread what one doesn't have. Regular testing helps ensure the health of the community.

But, yes, kissing with a partner of unknown STD status carries some risk of infection.

-- Modified on 7/15/2008 11:32:38 PM

Absolutely do get tested on a reg basis if you are playing in this hobby. You are putting many at risk if you are not responsable and take meassures to ensure you do not have an STD and are not spreading it. I see it as part of anyones responsability if they play here, and the ladies who "work" here. Test regularly...its easy and quick and then you can relax and have fun!!

Infection free is not the same as risk free, and at the very least you can a) catch hell from a partner, and b) babies do come from somewhere.  Whole lotta ways to catch something unexpected!

Math - your unmatched head for the hard data allows one to put the transmitted healthcare risks into perspective.  I'm curious about your thoughts on the nature of the risk-seeking behavior itself as a risk factor.

I'm finding that the element of risk itself is a risk factor correlating with ...well, escalating high-risk behaviors.  I am starting to believe that the need for risk is at the heart of the addiction cycle (sexual, gambling, wall-street, LE, etc.), and that the risk-free encounter is of little interest.

I don't claim to have the answers, but I am struggling with the questions.  

NO exchanges of body fluids! that is why I am not living on antibiotics like some providers!
ALWAys ..SAFE for both!

I don't claim to have the answers either, but if you are struggling with the questions you might want to read "The Polar Bear Strategy: Reflections on Risk in Modern Life" by John F. Ross, Perseus Books, 1999.

Risk perception is not the same as objective risk, of course. I quote from Ross (pg. 75-76)

-----------------------
Dread appeared to play a major role in another risk study Slovic and Fischhoff conducted. They asked a representative sampling of the public whether more deaths in America were caused by accidents or by disease. Most responded that accidents killed more Americans. In fact, disease takes fifteen times as many lives as accidents do. Yet it is the specter of sudden, unpreventable, and dreadful accidents that captures our imagination and causes us seriously to overestimate the probability that they will befall us.
-----------------------

It could be argued that STDs (especially HIV) cause dread in this community. People focus on what is possible NOT what is probable.

The single most interesting piece of data on HIV that I know of is given in "Brothel: Mustang Ranch and Its Women" by Alexa Albert, Ballantine Books, 2001, p. 4, "Since HIV testing began in 1986, no brothel worker had tested positive, I was told, and the incidence of other STDs was negligible."

This piece of data is repeated in the Related Link.

-----------------------
Since 1986, when mandatory testing began, not a single brothel prostitute has ever tested positive for HIV. The mandatory condom law was passed in 1988. A study conducted in 1995 in two brothels found that condom use in the brothels was consistent and sexually transmitted diseases were accordingly absent. The study also found that few of the prostitutes used condoms in their private lives.[8]
-----------------------

Obviously, condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission. Studies I've seen estimate that condoms are about 86% effective in protecting against HIV in actual use. Some of the failures are due to slippage and breakage. Let's assume that the ladies working in the Nevada bordellos are better than the general public in using condoms correctly and get 95% protection against HIV.

Without condoms there should be one HIV transmission for every 500 sessions with an infected client. Assuming 95% protection that drops to one HIV transmission for every 10,000 sessions with an infected client.

Unfortunately, there aren't any good studies of legal prostitution in Nevada of which I'm aware. Even the estimates I've seen of the number of legal prostitues working in Nevada vary from 300 to 800. However I'll go out on a limb and estimate that for there to be zero HIV transmissions in 22 years that the HIV infection rate in the client population is no greater than 0.3%. It could be much less.

Assuming the infection rate is 0.3% among clients of escorts, the risk of HIV transmission from client to provider in any single session is on the order of one in 150,000 if condoms aren't used and one in 3,000,000 if condoms are used.

There were about 3.4 million injuries and 41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999 (in the U.S.). You probably stand a better chance of being injured or killed in an auto accident on your way to see an escort than you do of catching HIV from her.

Escorts driving to visit clients also probably stand a better chance of being injured or killed in an auto accident than they do of catching HIV from the client.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The odds quoted above are for no recent STD test. Concentrating on the probable NOT the possible, a recent negative STD test drops the HIV risk (for your partner) by another factor of 47 according to CDC researchers ("Reducing the Risk of Sexual HIV Transmission," Varghese et al, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, January 2002).


-- Modified on 7/21/2008 4:37:25 AM

Great response, and I am now reading the Polar Bear Strat, a good read that speaks more to irrational risk perception (or inflation).  I'm thinking there is something more fundamental about risk-seeking, i.e. intentionally engaging in risky behaviors (or those perceived as risky, given an inflated/irrational risk assessment).

Emily Alspector's post (below) talks to this escalation of thrill-seeking behavior:
"Darwinian evolution in conjunction with national pride still does not seem to be a sufficient explanation as to why people put their lives at risk for fun, be it BASE jumping, unprotected sex, day trading, or substance abuse. Researchers believe the biopsychosocial model is at work, incorporating genetic, environmental, and cultural factors, in deciding whether or not to take a risk.

The neurobiological explanation for risky behavior is based on the reward pathways located in the limbic system. Blum (as cited in The Brief Addiction Science Information Source), suggests a cascade of neurotransmitter release, with dopamine being the signal discharged at the end of the chain reaction. Although Blum’s model is meant to embody the nervous system of an addict, we can expand this model to encompass the similar feedback reactions occurring in thrill-seeking individuals. In such people, the cascade is abnormal and the number of dopamine receptors becomes decreased so that the individual must somehow release more dopamine to compensate and suppress his cravings. In fact, there have been genetic links to cascade inhibition. Not only do these cascades need more stimulation to be effective, but a continual lowering of tolerance keeps these individuals pushing their limits."

I find myself wondering if one can ever crawl back down the slope once the cascade has escalated?  Methinks my brain is trying to get me killed...

 -- Deep Heat