PDA

View Full Version : Safe Sex



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Admin
05-19-02, 22:03
Select "Add New Message" to post a message.

05-26-02, 22:33
Safe sex is a relative thing, It is nearly imposible for a male to get AIDS from a blowjob unless he has open sores on his penis and the person sucking him has open sores in her/his mouth. It is also very unlikely that a man will get AIDS from intercourse with an infected woman, unless he has open sores on his penis.
The most common causes of getting AIDS are when drug addicts share needles, or from anal sex. Homosexual men where the first group to be identified with AIDS. Gay men that had anal sex would spread the virus to the men they fucked.
Once safe sex practices became common most gay men stopped having anal sex without condoms and that made the virus much less common among gay men. Unfortunately the virus still spread between drug users who would share needles.
Also the virus spread through third world countries that did not educate people about safe sex practices. In many parts of Africa the virus spreads through hetrosexual (male-female)sex. There are a few reasons for that and some of those include a common practice of anal sex to avoid pregnancy, a common practice of body peircing of the scrotum and penis in some cultures, and lack of health care to treat common venereal diseases that cause open wounds on the genitals.
This forum is for men who want to have sex with women so our main concern should be to avoid getting common sexually transmitted diseases.
Wearing condoms is the most effective way to do that, but you can still get herpes and some other viruses even if you wear condoms because they only cover part of you. There is always some risk.

Guess Who
05-28-02, 02:09
Brett,
I wonder, let's say you get a bbbj from a girl who takes it in her mouth, or swallows. She may have had many guys before you that day or night. Wouldn't you say that shoots down the minimal risk when receiving a bj theory?

Prokofiev
05-28-02, 04:57
GuessWho,
Why would that make any difference? If she swallows the sperm it is gone and dead in an acidic environment. In her mouth, saliva has a negative affect on the HIV virus, although nothing like stomach acid. Don't you think she will have a glass of water, food or maybe even brush her teeth before having sex with you? The HIV virus is relatively delicate and is not going to last in her mouth for a long period of time. No cases of HIV thru kissing or oral sex have been reported. But there has been a study of homosexual men in SF who had routine oral sex without condoms with KNOWN HIV infected partners. At the end of the study, no one was HIV+. None of this proves anything except that it is extremely dificult to get the virus though oral transmission - either giving or receiving.
I suppose you are thinking that she has a mouthful of sperm at the point that she gives you a BBBJ and that the pool of HIV infected semen in her mouth could travel up your urethra and infect you. Not very likely - but I suppose possible. Try talking with her first! Or offer her a breath mint or one of the new Listerine Oral Care Strips - which supposedly kill germs, but at least make your breath smell good!

05-30-02, 01:29
Hi guess who..glad to see you here. I think the last post covered it. It is not easy to get HIV through the penis. Even if she has full blown AIDS its not likely you would get it from her. The study quoted in the last post is correct, and many others involving prostitutes show that getting AIDS through sex is not easy. Almost none of the prostitutes studied had the virus except the ones that use needles to shoot drugs. The bad news is that a very high number of prostitutes are drug users so many did have the virus. Still a man is unlikely to get AIDS from an infected female unless he has open sores.(even then its not likely) The one very dangerous thing to do is anal sex. Thats because the ass is not meant for fucking and there is usually some bleeding involved, If the guy doing the fucking has AIDS then he may pass the virus to the woman or man he is fucking. Mostly men are reasonably safe from getting AIDS sexually unless they have open sores that come into contact with an infected persons body fluids. Or they allow another man to fuck them in their ass. Gay men get it mostly through anal sex, oral sex is not a high risk. The most common way of getting AIDS now is through sharing needles to use drugs. But if you already have a sexually transmitted disease then you may have the open sores that could allow the virus into your body.................The simple way to say it is there are two high risk things that you should never do. ..1......Do not share needles to shoot up drugs. ..2...Do not allow a man to fuck you in your ass.......If you avoid those two things you are at low risk...........

Prokofiev
05-30-02, 03:29
Brett,
While I agree with almost your entire post, you leave the impression that unprotected sex with a prostitute is OK. I would NEVER have intercorse with a pro (vaginal or anal) without using a condom. All reputable sources recommend this, not only for AIDS prevention, but all other STD's. BBBJ is probably safe from an AIDS perspective, but other STD's are possible( i.e. herpes). I always use a condom for BJ's because it makes me feel safer and I can sleep at night knowing I have protected myself at the highest possible level. I also use anti-bacterial soap or "Handi-Wipes" after sex for the same reason. Needless to say I have never had any STD, but it is likely that my level of protection is a bit of overkill. But either way, unprotected intercourse is a very bad idea. . .
-P

David
05-30-02, 05:39
Brett,

Let me add that AIDS is not the only STD you need fear ... even if you don't wear a condom to protect you from AIDS, wear one to protect you from a multitude of other nasty (very contagious) STD's.

David

Guess Who
05-30-02, 22:41
hey guys,
i appreciate your responses. i'll also add i never have intercourse with a prostitute. i guess i'm just scared shitless, protected or not. the only thing i ever do is get bj's. but i'll admit, sometimes its a bbbj. a while back i thought i had something. when i urinated it felt like fire was coming out, no discharge though. i immediatley saw a doctor who specialized in std's. he took a [CodeWord109] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109) sample and said i had nothing. i guess if you have an infestion of some sort that white blood cells collect as they fight it off and show up in [CodeWord109] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109). he did tell me that alot of caffeine or soda can sometimes cause this to happen as well. needless to say i drank gallons of water and was fine. anyone ever have anything like that?

Member #4239
05-31-02, 10:44
There are multiple causes of burning with urination(which in medical jargon is called "dysuria"), but I am not aware of caffeine being one of them. I am glad you're doing better now.
There is no question that certain types of sexual activity carry a higher risk and certain others are relatively "low" risk. In my opinion however, when it comes to the HIV infection, even a "low" risk of exposure is too high a risk. Any prostitute is HIV positive unless proven otherwise. Therefore I recommend condoms for any kind of sexual activity with a prostitute -no exceptions. Have fun, but do it intelligently. J.G.

Guess Who
05-31-02, 23:59
J.G.
I hear ya, I didn't know about the caffeine either. However, he's the doc and I put trust in that. I told a buddy about him and it turned out he coincidentally saw him previously for a similar episode. He needed treatment though unfortunately. The doc also said I may have had something but fought it off. Who knows, but thankfully nothing showed up. I've heard horror stories of having to get your dick reamed, then antibiotics. I guess that's heaven compared to other things you can catch.

Easy Rider
06-02-02, 04:26
Braces are dangerous. They can cause open sores on the young girls gums. And that can cause her to get aids, if she's going down on some guy who has aids, and gets some of his come onto that sore.

Current fad amoung young hookers in Matamoros is to buy braces. Even though they might not really need em. They are fashionable. But they make me nervous.....

Does the doctor agree with that point?

Curious I've been hangin out extensively with *****s for the last three years in Matamoros, and have yet to even hear of my first aids victim. But I've also yet to meet a needle using druggie there. There is a certain amount of MJ, coke, and crack, but no mainlining of anything.

Thank God.....

06-04-02, 15:32
Hi guys, it is important to use condoms because AIDS is not the only STD out there. Also keep in mind that a condom does not protect you from everything. Herpes can still be transmitted because the condom does not cover your whole body and any skin contact can lead to possible transmission.(most likely at the base of the penis) Also a condom will not prevent you from getting an infestation of lice commonly called "crabs" and crabs do not start to itch until a week or two after you get them. (crabs are easy to get rid of with a cream you get at the drug store) I have had unprotected oral sex with dozens of women and protected sex with more than I can count . I have never had any STD but thats just dumb luck. The rate of AIDS has gone way down as a sexually transmmited disease because gay men understand the risk of anal sex, but other sexually transmited diseases are still going strong so wear a condom and if your in a relationship you should think twice about your personal risk

deep4u31
06-05-02, 02:34
Since this is the WSG, there is another dimension of safe sex besides protecting yourself from STDs that I would like to add.
That is.. sex without getting into "trouble." I only deal with incalls and only apartment workers. I don't want anyone knowing where I live or in my house. I prefer to be one-on-one with the woman, I don't like other guys or even other women around which is why I prefer apartments.
I don't deal with street action- much too risky for me. Once or twice I hung out with the fellas and had a little street action but I wouldn't do it alone. I also prefer foreign women. They're usually very respectful and really want to please you. I've also noticed that they are more comfortable with their sexuality and enjoy it more. I've had many situations where I paid for 30 mins. and ended up staying for over an hour because they enjoyed it so much and didn't want to stop. One even asked me for my phone number telling me that she wanted to see me outside of "the business." It may seem limiting but I feel comfortable with my approach to this. I don't need to do this but I love women and this is a way to have plenty without all of the headaches...lol.

Dickhead
06-05-02, 05:07
Excellent point. Safe sex has many parameters. Not getting robbed is key to safe sex. Picking up street walkers is very dangerous. They look like they are alone but they are not. BUT I don't think incall is that safe either. You never know who is in the closet or filming you or taking down your plate number to blackmail you. I like to have the woman come to my hotel (outcall) and would use hotels even if it were my home town. I know this drives up the cost in the short run but there is cost and then there is cost.

I prepare the room by, among other things, disconnecting the phone and putting it in the safe along with my other valuables. I have everything like the fee, condoms, lube, toys, etc., ready in the bed side table so I don't have to let the gal out of my sight. I make sure to have the correct change but then I have some extra money stashed in a convenient place in case I need some extras. This helps you stick to a budget also.

You gotta watch your ID as close as you watch your wallet. Not only are stolen IDs valuable by themselves but there is the potential for blackmail and burglary. Everybody knows about keeping stuff in their socks but I like to also tape the wad to the inside of the sock.

Also, if you order a hooker from a cabbie, don't give him your room number. Meet the gal in the bar or lobby. This is also why I don't like ordering hookers from bellhops or desk clerks; they already know your room number.

Play safe, live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse.

Dickhead

Guess Who
06-05-02, 06:04
I agree with you guys on the many parameters to safe sex. I myself don't do incall. Reason being is there's your room, the shit in it, and your car all with your name on them. Also, you don't know whose going to show up there. I can see why you'd do it that way, it's just not for me. Although street action is risky, I prefer it. In fact I know where a number of girls hang in different towns so many times I see the same one over and over. I also enjoy the hunt, some nights nothing happens but it's just as fun to scout and try new areas. Anyway, I also enjoy the variety which also makes it fun. You just need to play it safe in more ways than one. But man, is this shit addicting or what?

deep4u31
06-06-02, 00:38
Very good points about incall. Believe it or not being filmed actually crossed my mind once. If the room has a closet in it, when the girl leaves to let me get undressed, sometimes I check!
I don't have to worry about someone taking down my plate number since I don't have car but that's a very good point to keep in mind.

It's true that you don't know who is going to show up or if someone else has a key to the apartment etc... I guess that's the major risk factor here.

This takes me back to the point about only patronizing foreign women. Most of those antics are usually associated with American or "Americanized" establishments. Many of the women I've patronized can barely speak english never mind conjure up some sophisticated scheme. They're usually new to this country, as I usually find out in conversation, and just don't want any trouble. It's possible someone could be behind them doing it so you still have to play it safe.

Very good points DH & GW... thanks I'll keep my eye on those closets...lol

Viator
06-06-02, 20:48
Hi,

I shall admit it, I am one of those crazy guys who like having sex with addict girls. Hey, let me take cover before flaming away! I like them for reasons of my own, but I only get blowjobs with condom, so I feel pretty safe... at least as far as AIDS is concerned. Also, I carefully wash my intimate parts as soon as I get back home.

What do the experts out there think about the safety issue in this case? Are there widely spread sexual diseases that can be transmitted by mere spittle? Is kissing their breasts and caressing their asses safe? Should I go to a doctor and check for sexual deseases on a regular basis?

All tips appreciated -- please excuse my stuttering English.

Viator

Cum On Her
06-10-02, 06:32
i like to have the rush of sex without a condom. i don't know what it is.

i always have conversation with the girl first, then if she sounds alright i'll let her give me head without a condom.

if i am horny enough for a piece of her ass i ask her questions like do you use drugs and how many guys do you have sex with on any given night, also i check her **** for any scrapes or scars.

if they act fishy i fuck them but with a condom.
if they say they use drugs, i ask what type most are weed and crack if any.
if it is not a needle drug i fuck them without a condom.
if they say they only sleep with a couple guys a night then i fuck them without a condom, aslong as i believe them.

i say play by your own rules.
be safe and as long as you like it do it.

happy hunting

Viator
06-10-02, 14:21
-- also i check her **** for any scrapes or scars.

cumhoner,

i wonder what a street ***** would say if i asked her to let me inspect her pussy for scrapes... :-] are you a gynecologist, or what?

besides, it only happened once that a heroin addict admitted to me of being such -- and i asked lots of them. with time i have learned that what they say is totally worthless; they're accustumed to lying to themselves and to others.

but maybe you're better than i am at talking with women... ;-)

viator

Guess Who
06-10-02, 21:37
shit, don't tell me you've found scrapes!

John Dough
06-11-02, 01:39
For those of you who don't use a condom, have you tried applying Derma Shield for protection? Their Derma Plus and Derma Med products are supposed to have an anti-microbial agent that resists viruses and bacteria. It is a foam in an aerosol can that you rub on and let dry, and is intended to be used on your hands. If you have tried it for this unusual purpose, have you caught anything while using it? I'm sure it's not as good as a condom, but for those who don't use one, it might be better than nothing.

Is it just me, or are condoms a little on the short side? It seems they leave a small area at the base uncovered. It would be nice if they made one that flared at the bottom, and was long enough and wide enough to cover the testicles. I was thinking about getting some large sized ones, and see if I can stretch them this way. Has anybody tried this? Did it work? Bell bottoms are back in fashion!

06-19-02, 04:47
Viator..I wanted to respond because you asked a few questions........I don't claim to be an expert, but I can answer. You are pretty safe if your useing a condom for a bj,,,,,,,it is possible to get herpes because the condom does not cover the bottom of your penis though...I doubt she would deep throat you enough to make contact with your skin,,but its possible.....Kissing nipples is harmless......NEVER fuck without a condom . You probably wont get AIDS, but there are a dozen other sexually transmitted diseases that are much more common.
Dont bother asking these girls anything,,they lie about anything and everything........If you assume they are druggies you will be right most of the time,,even the ones who look fresh and clean are mostly drug users. I am always respectfull to sex workers...but never trust them about anything. Most will rip you off if they think your an easy mark.
I have always felt that incall is the safest (when you go to her place) because they don't want trouble there. When they come to your hotel there is usually a driver who waits outside. I don't often hear of customers getting mugged,, but it is very common to get the guys money then not perform the expected services. Many of these women will pick your pockets if given half a chance.......The bottom line is make a clear face to face agreement about exactly what she will do,,for how long and for what price. (not over the phone, it must be face to face)...Never give her any money until you are getting undressed and ready to do it. If you suspect she is trying to scam you,,9 out of 10 times,,she is.

Dickhead
06-19-02, 05:40
Well, again, I want to recommend AGAINST in-call (you going to her place) in unfamiliar situations. While maybe it is true in some places in some times that she will not "want any trouble" in this environment, I believe it to be far more likely that the in-call environment will be where trouble lurks, AKA "set up." Then the problem will occur on her turf, in her hood. I don't like that, especially in Mexico.

So when I say out-call, I don't mean her place and I don't mean your place. I mean a hotel ("your" hotel). And, (again especially in Mexico) why give your own name? Pay cash, don't tell her, the motel, or anyone else your last name, don't have anything with your name on it lying around the room, and don't let her see your own car/license plate. Don't park your car anywhere near your room. Don't even mention having a car. Shit, if you can possibly avoid it, don't even HAVE a car when practicing this hobby. Too traceable and too risky.

SAFE SEX: Blend in, use public transportation, remain anonymous, keep moving, be respectful and don't burn the locals, get laid and get out safely.

Dickhead

Dick Johnson
06-19-02, 15:37
At least in U.S., I strongly recommend INCALL, going to her place. She doesn't want trouble at her place and will be less likely to rip you off.

If she comes to your place, she will add $$ for her travelling time and she might even take off without giving you any service or ask for more $$ as your agreed price only includes a massage or strip show!

If you go to another country then hotels might be safer then incalls.

Dickhead
06-19-02, 15:48
In the United States, I recommend jacking off over either incall or outcall as the vast majority of American prostitutes are worthless. Thus, my advice pertains mainly to other countries, and primarily when travelling. Somewhere else I posted some other advice as far as how not to get ripped off in your hotel room.

Dickhead

06-20-02, 01:51
Guys,,the idea is safe sex,,,,,,,not paranoid sex.. exactly what is she going to do with your plate number,,,,,(even Bill Clinton couldn't get busted just for having a car).....I know a few guys here will claim to be international billionares that have blackmailers waiting around evry corner, but for most of us thats not a likely problem......... I have had hookers in my car more than 200 times,,I have had trouble with several, but my car was never an issue. I have had several at my apartment, no trouble there except they have a scary habit of leaving things behind that could be found by the wife or girlfriend......This might surprise a few people, but most girls will charge more for incall, because she is taking more risk at her place.......The one common scam for incall services is to claim the woman will be beutiful, with a great body etc,,then after you have paid, she somehow is not available and a very ordinary woman takes her place..........If you go to an outcall service where she comes to your hotel there are two common scams,,,one is to get your money then claim it is just for a backrub..........The other is that a few minutes after she gets to your room, her driver bangs on the door saying there is some emerrgency,,she then leaves with your money without providing service.......Very few guys get mugged or blackmailed,,also few get arrested,, but many get scammed........The name of the game for hookers is to seperate you from your money. Some do it with sex,,others with scams... Many will pick your pockets too..........There are very few hookers that can think long term enough to plan a blackmail. Their world is fast cash.......................If you want to get an escort the safest bet is the lower cost independent incalls. No false claims of 19 year olds with D cups. Just sex with a regular lady . The higher price places cost more and promise more,,but they do not deliver more.

Dickhead
06-20-02, 01:58
What she can do with your plate number is find out where you live (public record, at least in my state), which happened to a married friend of mine. Then she looked up his phone number and tried to blackmail him.

So let's be careful, but not paranoid, out there.

Dickhead

Viator
07-09-02, 18:28
> Dont bother asking these girls anything,,they lie about anything and everything........If you assume they are druggies you will be right most of the time,,even the ones who look fresh and clean are mostly drug users. I am always respectfull to sex workers...but never trust them about anything. Most will rip you off if they think your an easy mark. I have always felt that incall is the safest

Hi Brett,

I am no expert either, but that's probably a difference between prostitution in Europe and the States: it's unlikely here to get robbed by *****s, especially non-Black ones. Blacks can be a bit more dangerous. I have lots of experience in Germany and Italy, and I have always felt pretty safe. Also, I read newspapers on a regular basis, and I only read once of a trick being robbed by a hooker. Either things are a bit more friendly, or robbery is considered a deterrent to the business... :-)

A problem I noticed with addicts is that, especially as they are at the beginning of their carrier (and still looking decently fresh) they are at times pretty clumsy at blowing your dick, so that you get spittle trickling on your loins...a plastic sheet would be sufficient to deal with the problem, but I always felt it to be too ridicolous an arrangement to be proposed :-(

Any idea on this subject?

Viator

PS: a funny note - one of these desperado girls last Friday told me that she and her boyfriend needed the money I was handling her to buy their engagement rings... when they're under effect of some substance you can expect the craziest lies! Anyway, I decided to play the role, asking her if she planned to bear lots of children, and wishing her and her boyfriend long life and a happy marriage. Boy! Anyway, everything was said in a kind and relaxed fashion, and we separated in good terms.

jeffjimman
07-17-02, 03:27
Hey, Viator and Cumonher, I have a question for you.

Since you like to have sex without a condom (I do this with girlfriends after a few weeks), did you get any STDs, even "harmless" ones like herpes? Or did you have it already? After all, 15% have the big H.

I used to be paranoid around gfs, but after all, as long as you don't get AIDS or hep B, it's not really that big a deal.

sz_barber
07-20-02, 05:03
will i get any sex diseases by finger-fucking a prosititue ?

someone told me i will catch the disease thru the sweat
on my fingers if I put it inside the girl's vagina, is this true ???


will i catch AIDS even with the condoms ? i am worried 'cus
normally condom doesnt cover the penis all the way to my
balls.l

Prokofiev
07-20-02, 16:17
Barber,
.
Just wash your hands afterwards and you will be fine. The bigger problem is finding a PRO who will let you finger-fuck her. I find it strange, but many refuse. They are afraid you will have something (germs,sperm) on your hands which you would not have on a lubricated condom. Many strip club girls have let me finger them. But SW's and massage patlor women don't seem to like it.

Rubber Nursey
07-21-02, 12:58
Barber, Viator and others,

HIV is primarily a blood-borne virus. Yes, it is definitely present in semen, but it is transmitted mainly by blood to blood contact. That is why it is easily caught by people having unprotected anal sex (the lining of the anus tears) and from sharing needles. For the virus to get into your body it needs an entry point, like a cut or tear. Keep in mind though that the virus is extremely small, so even a microscopic tear that you can't even see may be a threat.

HIV is only found in minute amounts in vaginal fluid, (although it's different if she has her period), and is basically non-existent in saliva. You cannot catch HIV from someone drooling on you or sweating on you!!! You cannot catch HIV from french kissing or from caressing a girls ass.

Blowjobs without a condom...you can get chlamydia, gonohorrea, herpes, and a few other nasties. WITH a condom, you can still get herpes if her lips touch your balls or base of the penis.

Sex without a condom...you can catch the works!!

Sex WITH a condom...you can still catch herpes, genital warts and molluscum contagiosum, as well as scabies and other skin to skin bugs.

Viator...If you are only having covered blowjobs from girls you have basically no risk of catching anything, so long as she doesn't put herpes infected lips on the skin that the condom doesn't cover.

Barber...you cannot catch anything from finger-fucking. There may be a risk if she has her period and you have a cut on your finger though. Wash your hands straight after doing it.

Proko...The main reason many hookers don't like fingers inside them is that sharp fingernails can tear the lining of the vagina, leaving them open to infection if the condom was to break during the sex. Strippers may not have to worry about that sort of thing. Dirty fingers can also cause infections. And yes, some girls are concerned that you may have touched your penis (and got pre-cum on your fingers) before you insert them.

Paddy
07-25-02, 05:44
Hi RN,

I know that you're right about the risks even WITH a condom. Herpes, genital warts, etc. I picked-up Molluscum once so you can get bugs even with a condom on. Therefore, I can personally confirm your previous statements.

My question then is if you can catch a nasty STD even utilizing a condom properly, what is left in terms of safety for both parties? I mean, what alternate sexual activities could you suggest if even condoms can't protect us totally? What can a guy do with a SW to completely protect both parties and be erotic and fulfilling all at the same time?

I and many of the other guys could really use your expertise on this one. Thanks much - as always.

Rubber Nursey
07-26-02, 07:22
Paddy,

As you know, diseases like molluscum and scabies, etc can be caught simply by skin to skin contact. Because of that, there is really no way to be completely sure that you will not catch something from ANY activity you do that involves touching. That said, complete abstinence is hardly a viable option! LOL

I think it comes down to common sense:

a) Don't ever have sex with a girl who offers you a service without a condom. Even if YOU say no, chances are that plenty of guys before you have said yes.

b) Avoid heavy drug users and drinkers. Aside from the increased risk of HIV in IV drug users, addictions can often take precedent over all the other aspects of an addicts life. They also tend to lack self respect, which in turn leads them to care very little about their health. In their defence, addicts who DO go for checkups are often discriminated against by doctors and treated badly, which makes them reluctant to go on a regular basis. Also, sex workers who use while they are working are likely to be less vigilant and alert, and may not have noticed previous clients taking condoms off or having condoms break.

c) Go to a professional. If you go to a woman who is intelligent, happy, friendly and comfortable with her work, she is more likely to treat her job in a professional manner and look after herself. Women who treat it as a business not only often have more self respect than those who feel they are "forced" to work, but they have more respect for the health and safety of their clients...giving someone an STD will NOT encourage repeat custom! Catching something would also put an immediate halt on her income, so it's in HER best interests to stay disease free as well.

d) Learn to do a "DC". Girls do it, so concerned clients should do it too. Get books or get online and find pictures of various diseases and infections. Learn to recognise them and check out the girl during the service. Girls go through the first half of the service checking things out carefully, and if they find something they will either stop the booking or change the service. There's no reason why you guys can't do that too. Don't let your "little head" do your thinking for you...if you see something suspicious, STOP no matter how hard it is to do it! LOL

One of the safest ways to have sex...if you really want to be this careful...is to do it with her bending over or kneeling on all fours on the bed. Doing it standing up works too. You can then control the strokes, making sure that the base of your penis doesn't touch her skin AND that your balls don't either.

Otherwise, there is very little risk in BJs, massage and hand relief, mutual masturbation and, if you really want to be extreme, masturbating yourself while she strips or mastrurbates in front of you. I don't think it's healthy to worry about it TOO much, but a bit of common sense and some caution is definitely recommended. Treat everyone as if they are infected...and that goes for girls that AREN'T hooker too! :)

Paddy
07-26-02, 13:01
Hi RN,

Thanks for your excellent advice and counsel. I've said it before but you should start-up your own internet advice column for profit. I'd subscribe in a second and it would be money well spent. Jackson might have some ideas for you.

I've become very knowledgeable about Molluscum and not only can it be contracted from skin-to-skin contact, but it can be contracted from towels or a Jacuzzi which an infected person has used and not thoroughly cleaned. Luckily, it's very curable and self-limiting even if it isn't treated.

Therefore, the remaining threats for we condom users are Herpes and genital warts for which there is no final cure.

Your thoughts on "alternative" sexual behaviors with a SW are rather intriguing to say the least. Hmm...

By the way, what does "DC" stand for?

Finally, I wish that I lived in Perth.

Paddy

sg128
07-28-02, 17:56
just wondering.............has anyone ever heard of a person being infected with hiv after visiting a massage parlor? i have been thinking about trying one out but i am reluctant because of the risk of contracting hiv.

Prokofiev
07-28-02, 20:06
SG - No, I haven't, but then it is VERY hard to figure out just where and when a certain person gets infected. Knowing something about about AMP's in the US, I would say it is one of the safer alternatives. Why?
.
Usually the girls live on site and know each other and the "house mother" who runs the operation, keeps track of $$ and cooks the food. IV drug use is highly unlikely and seeing men outside of the AMP is strictly prohibited. Most of these women have children and work a month and fly back to their families with money. In most AMP's cleanliness is important and the girls are taught how to "inspect" the men while bathing them or during the massage. Also, despite what you read here, the usual sex act is a HJ or a BJ with condom, both very safe. In short, it depends what you do and how you do it, but in general I think AMP's are some of the safest alternatives.
.
My description of an AMP is from knowing a local Korean operation and may not apply to all cities and parlors. For instance SF and NYC would be different, I assume. I got to know the girls and house mother quite well and they told me much of how things worked. Surprisingly - or maybe not - the more I hung around this place, eating dinner with the girls, talking, watching TV (their favorite pastime), the less sexual it all seemed. It quickly lost its erotic allure.

sg128
07-28-02, 20:55
thanks for replying. i live in a relatively small town but there are plenty of massage parlors around. i always figured that it would be fairly safe to try one but was not too sure. i still don't know if i will go through with it or not but the information you have told me will make it easier to decide. just wondering...seeing as you has a chance to get to know the girls, do you know if they are tested regularly?

Prokofiev
07-29-02, 05:20
The women saw their Gyno. once or twice a year, but did that include AIDS testing? I doubt it. Truthfully I just don't know, but doubt it. If you are interested in the AMP scene, go and get a massage and HJ or covered BJ. That should be safe as anything. Try to judge the health-consciousness of the women and go from there. As RN points out, if BBBJ or FS without a condom is available, then anything goes. You can have alot of fun at an AMP without FS, which will always cost you more. If you have never had a body shampoo or had a small oriental woman walk on your back, you are in for a treat. However, not all AMPs offer these services, but many do.

zel66
07-29-02, 16:06
Hello everyone. Can someone help me out here? Yesterday i went to visit an AMP. I got FS from the girl. She put a condom on to perform oral and then vaginal sex. But during the vaginal sex the condom broke! Now i am scared out of my mind. What are the chances that i might have been exposed to hiv? Does anyone know? The girl notices how scared i was afterwards and she told me not to worry and that they always have to use condoms with their customers. So does anyone have any idea what the hiv rates are in these AMP's?

07-31-02, 23:18
zel66
Don't worry , the chances of you getting HIV are very very low. Even if she has AIDS it is very unlikely she could transmit it to you during normal intercourse. If you have open wounds on your penis from a cut or untreated venereal disease the chances go up, but I assume you don't. You might still want to get checked out for other sexually transmitted diseases like clamidia etc, but HIV is very very unlikely.

HIV is not a virus that spreads easily, the most common way to get HIV (the AIDS virus) is to share needles with an infected person while taking drugs or to have anal sex with an infected man. If the man has the virus and he cums insde your ass, you would be at very high risk of getting the virus from him.

There have been some surprising studies that show prostitutes are very unlikely to be HIV positive unless they also use drugs that are injected. Unfortunately a fairly high percentage of prostitutes do inject drugs so thier HIV rates are fairly high for that reason.

Another study of gay men who regularly perform oral sex on other gay men without condoms (including a large number that swallow) shows that only a very low number that were HIV positive. This does not mean performing oral sex is safe, but its clearly not the way the virus is usually transmitted between gay men.

Although the HIV virus does not spread easily, many sexually transmitted diseases do. Some of them can be very unpleasant, and some can not be cured. It really is important to wear condoms. Let me re state what RN said in her last post, If a prostitute is willing to have sex with you without a condom you can bet she does the same thing with her other customers. She has a very high likelyhood of having some sexually transmitted disease, and if you do her without a condom, so do you.

Joe Zop
08-01-02, 00:09
zel66 -- what you have is potential exposure, which means that your chances of catching something have gone up because the condom broke, but as Brett notes your chances are still pretty low. If the sex worker is telling you the truth and she always uses a condom, then your risk is considerably lower still. The problem, of course, is that you don't really know whether what she said is true, so you're likely to obsess on this.

The only study I know of that's looked at AMPs was one that looked at behaviors of sex workers in San Francisco, which found that, yes, all of the workers did wear condoms during intercourse with customers, but not always in their private lives, so there was still some degree of risk. (Of course, three quarters didn't really have relationships in their private lives, but that's a different issue.)

Statistically speaking, Asian women in the US have a very low rate of HIV infection, but nothing I know of has singled out rates for AMPs. Your chances of getting HIV from a single encounter during vaginal sex are fairly low if neither of you have open wounds or sores, but, of course, any chance is enough to make someone nervous, and someone is going to be that one in however many who's the exception.

Since you're nervous -- get checked out. The odds are heavily in your favor, but having peace of mind is never too expensive or big a hassle, in my book.

zel66
08-01-02, 00:28
Joe and Brett
Thanks for the replies. I sure hope you guys are right. i have been worried sick about it ever since. I am going to take a few months off and i am going to go get tested when the time is right. Just to make sure.
If i do test negative, then from then on i think i will stick to handjobs and covered bj's. I don't want to go through this stress again. =)

sg128
08-01-02, 00:41
hey guys. this may seem like a stupid question. but is it possible to catch anything from titty-fucking a girl. an infection or something? just curious. do any of these massage parlor girls allow you to do this?

Prokofiev
08-01-02, 01:49
SG,
In most AMPs I know, there is not enough titty to get the job done. Remember, these are asian women. Good Luck

Joe Zop
08-01-02, 04:47
zel66 -- let's all face it, going with prostitutes is raising your risk factors in that you're going to be with women who have multiple partners, so the safest thing is either onanism or monogamy. That said, certainly your handjob/covered bj approach would be safest. For what it's worth, there are plenty of us who've gone through your exact experience, myself included, with no ill effects.

My take on it is this -- life isn't safe, and life without sex isn't life. As long as there's a condom involved, you're really pretty protected, even given the possibility of breakage or slippage. The mistake I've seen at lots of AMPs, which surprises me at this point in the game, is the use of baby oil or some such lube with condoms, which breaks latex down and can lead to breakage. I'd be curious to know if that's the case in your scenario.

sg128 -- perhaps you can get a rash or a complaint if you're an extravagant shooter :) but there aren't any STDs to be worried about with tit-fucking. And massage girls who actually have enough assets to make it possible certainly often allow for the possibility.

08-01-02, 05:07
hi guys......i think your more likely to get a cold than anything else if your titty fucking, back injury comes to mind as well.
zel66,,,forget about getting hiv,,,your odds are 1 in millions,,,,,,,,if you fuck a woman who has aids every day for several years without condoms, odds are still that you will not get the virus. it is not easy to spread the virus to men,(exept through anal sex) it has to have an opening in your skin. the virus will not come into your body unless you have open wounds that came into contact with her body fluids.

there are still a dozen or more nasty little things that you can get , most will show up in a few days if you did, (burning feeling when you [CodeWord134] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord134) etc)but clamidia might not be obvious and herpes may not give symptoms, if you got crabs,,you would start to feel them in a week or two,,...aids is not a worry, but you might want to get tested for the other things to feel safe.

zel66
08-01-02, 05:39
Joe-You are right about the girl using some sort of lube before having sex. I guess that is what helped contribute to the breaking of the condom then. I should mention that i had been to that particular AMP on several occasions before this and every time the girls used a condom for both oral and vaginal sex. So that is a good sign.

Once again, thanks for the feedback guys. I appreciate it

Rubber Nursey
08-01-02, 09:27
zel66,

I know how nervous you must be. I found myself on the receiving end of a broken condom a couple of times in my working life...a MUCH scarier position to be in mind you! ...and just thought I'd let you know that I never caught a thing. You should really have a full STD screen between three and ten days after a condom breakage, to pick up any of the "minor" nasties that you may have been exposed to. Then you need an HIV test at three months, and again at six months. Try not to panic too much though...as has been said by these guys already, the chances of a man catching HIV from a woman, especially one that insists she uses condoms all the time, are pretty darn slim.

sg128,

Tit-fucking is pretty much completely risk free (unless perhaps scabies is present) for a man. I just wanted to add though, that it is NOT necessarily risk free for your female partner. If you accidentally cum in her mouth or her eyes (ESPECIALLY her eyes), she is at risk of catching nasties from YOU, including HIV.

As for the questions about AMPs...obviously I do not know about the US parlours in particular, but I can say that in most developed countries your chances of catching HIV or other diseases in a brothel type environment are relatively low. Many parlours demand medical certificates from their workers (to cover the parlour owners ass in the case of a complaint), they will not condone drug users (drugs draw police attention), and they often try to ensure that the girls are clean, friendly and professional to encourage return business (more money in their greedy hands). Please remember that there is often an extremely vast difference between street workers and other sex workers. That goes for IV drug use in particular. Something I read about Oz sex workers recently said that an estimated 69% of street workers use injected drugs, and only around 7% of other sex workers do. (The nightclub/entertainment industry was estimated at around 22%...think more carefully before going home with a barmaid! LOL). Poverty, homelessness, drug dependency, violence and low self esteem are all factors that contribute to poor health....things that street workers are much more likely to suffer from than parlour workers.

And guys....I have heard too many men here saying "The condom broke. Maybe I should have a test now". As sexually active adults having sex with multiple partners, you should be having REGULAR testing! Don't wait for a condom scare to force you to take responsibility. How about thinking of the risk that YOU present to the HOOKERS for a change. It's pretty darn selfish to expect girls to have constant screening to protect YOUR health, when you guys show so little concern about the sex workers health. A condom breakage may cause YOU a little embarassment and inconvenience when you go and get antibiotics, but it could cost a sex worker one or two months INCOME while she is treated. Or it could end her "career" for good. Do you have any idea how terrified WE are when the condom breaks???

Not trying to be nasty...just making a point :)

Joe Zop
08-01-02, 13:44
Very good point, RN -- risk is risk, and being active is being active, no matter who's involved. If you're sexually active with multiple partners, then you should be tested not only for your own protection but for your partners'. And your point about the health of the sex worker is absolutely important -- being the one who is penetrated puts you at far higher risk for HIV, and while vaginal sex is safer than anal, it's still much more risky for the woman than man.

And just to clarify something I wrote earlier -- lube definitely *is* a good idea, not only for comfort but for condom safety, but it has to be the right kind -- water based and not oil based. That means KY or Astroglide or something similar, and not baby oil or cooking oil or vaseline, all of which I've seen people at AMPs use...

zel66
08-01-02, 17:14
RN- I have been tested before and come out negative. So personally, I know that i am not putting these girls at risk. That is why i will not go back to one of these AMP's until i have been tested again and i know i have no std's.

AnExpat
08-01-02, 17:21
Brett-

"The virus will not come into your body unless you have open wounds that came into contact with her body fluids."

I've heard that the HIV virus could enter the body through the penis opening (urethra), I myself aren't sure about this, u seem to have some knowledge on this subject; what's your opinion??

gonzo56
08-02-02, 00:19
i went and got hiv tested today and had a nice chat with the nurse. she asked me some questions (are my sex partners males or females etc). i have visited some amp's before and had an experience where one of the condoms broke. and i was scared shitless. that is why i went to get tested. the nurse told me that she does not expect me to test negative and went on to say that it is harder for a male to get hiv from a woman. living in a smaller city is also a good thing as hiv and aids are quite rare here. however she did say she had a few cases where guys went down to mexico and had sex with prostitutes then came back and tested positive. well, i'll find out in two weeks what my results where. hopefully negative. i'm going to be crossing my fingers.

Rubber Nursey
08-02-02, 10:40
zel66,
Your post really made me smile. Your choice to avoid AMPs until you are sure of your STI status is exactly the sort of responsible and compassionate attitude that I was trying to encourage with my last post. Thank you for showing me that I was wrong about some men :) I also hope you didn't think I was specifically targetting you with my little rant about STI screening...there have been a long line of similar queries made both here and in the old forum, and I just thought it was time to make a general statement. Good luck with your tests.

Good luck to you too gonzo56...I'm sure you will be fine. Just wondering though...did you JUST go for HIV testing, or did you get the "works" done?

The thing is guys, there is way too much emphasis being put on HIV in these discussions. By comparison, HIV is not really a risk factor that should be getting quite this much attention. What about life long diseases like herpes or genital warts (which can be responsible for cervical cancer in your female partners)? What about going insane and then dying from syphillis? What about chlamydia, which can infect your wife or girlfriend but cause no symptoms, until she is put in hospital with PID and told she is infertile? Or worse, the untreated infection or the ectopic pregnancy that could occur because of the internal scarring KILLS her! If HIV was REALLY the "epidemic" that many of you are treating it like, every second sexually active person on earth would be infected. The fact is, it is NOT that easy to catch...the other diseases ARE! Yes, you should always be aware of HIV, but it should NOT be the only reason that you get tested or the only reason that you use condoms.

PS...anExpat,
Many diseases can enter a man's penis through the urethra...and HIV is one of them. However, HIV usually needs an "entry point" such as a cut or sore to actually enter your system. If you have some other infection like an STI, thrush or a bladder infection that has caused irritation to the skin just inside the penis, there could be cuts or tiny abrasions that could become an entry point. Friction during long, vigourous sex sessions, especially without lube, can cause these abrasions too.

Joe Zop
08-02-02, 14:59
For what it's worth, RN, I think the scary part about HIV is that you're pretty well toast if it develops into AIDS, and even the best treatment at this point is a) expensive and b) nothing guaranteed. By contrast, most of the other STDs are curable as long as they're detected before they do serious damage (takes a long time to do the insanity thing with syphillis) or at least manageable. I think people tend to see most STDs as things that for the most part you can cure or survive and HIV/AIDS as something that you've got to continuously deal with until such point that it kills you. We've got lots of examples of people who have lived long productive lives with the other STDs, but because it's still early in the game we don't have the same examples from AIDS.

Of course you're dead on correct that all these other things are actually statistically far greater cause for worry, but to some extent. rightly or wrongly, people tend to approach STDs as something that can happen if you pack the wrong clothes on a trip, and HIV/AIDS as what can happen if you don't pack your parachute carefully.

Rubber Nursey
08-02-02, 15:23
Joe,

Like you said, most STDs are curable or manageable as long as they're detected before they do serious damage. What I'm getting at is that some people NEVER have a test unless they have an accident, and then they often just run out and request an HIV test and nothing else. Any doctor worth their salt would hopefully suggest a full screening as well as the blood test, but that won't necessarily happen. If you NEVER have a test, the chances of the doctor diagnosing the illness before your wife is infertile from PID or before the syphilis insanity sets in, is slim to none.

Personally I am terrified of HIV...just like everyone else is. But I was always much more afraid of catching the so-called "minor" STDs, because I knew the risk of exposure was so much greater.

I guess what bothers me most is the lack of education that most people have about STDs. I mean, really.... illnesses like HIV and others can KILL you! Would you drive a car without learning where the brake is? Would you jump out of a plane without knowing how to pull the ripcord? I am honestly surprised that so many people all over the world are having sex with NO idea about STDs. How can you possibly take proper precautions against disease if you don't understand the modes of transmission?

I am also surprised that grown adults are often too embarrassed to go to a doctor for STD screening. We are adults, and doctors are professionals. Walking into a surgery and dropping your pants is hardly emotionally devastating. I've heard heaps of my friends say "But what if they find something? I'd be so humiliated"...in my opinion that means they know that there is a chance that they MAY have something, so they definitely SHOULD be going to a doctor!

Joe Zop
08-02-02, 15:42
Oh, I get it -- you're in favor of sensible behavior when it comes to both sex and health. Must be that rubber fetish thing :) Considering the low number of people who even get annual health check-ups, I'd say that's an uphill climb. Grown adults are, I think, generally afraid that doctors will tell them that they have to change their behavior or, worse, will deliver some kind of bad news that will require change or follow-up, so the tendency is to use the ignorance-is-bliss approach. And that's regardless of whether the ailment has to do with sexually transmitted diseases. I'm not one to talk in this regard by any stretch, either, though I do get tested and a physical on a reasonably regular basis.

But I agree with you -- I don't at all understand the idea of going to a doctor and getting screened for HIV without doing the whole battery of tests. AIDS rings a personal bell for me because I've had people I know die from it, and do so terribly, but there aren't exactly any of the various nasties I'm in a hurry to get. I'm lucky enough to have been fairly sexually active for many years in a variety of locales and situations without ever catching a thing, and I chalk that up to being reasonably fastidious about using a safe-sex approach (and always doing so for penetrative sex.)

Rubber Nursey
08-02-02, 15:58
Well I don't know about a rubber fetish...but I AM rather partial to PVC catsuits! ;) heh heh

Joe Zop
08-02-02, 16:06
PVC? With all those nasty environmental and health issues related to doixins? Guess you are an advocate for high-risk behavior after all... :eek:

Rubber Nursey
08-02-02, 16:17
Guess you are an advocate for high-risk behavior after all...

The biggest risk involved with PVC catsuits, is that any man within eyeshot suffers a sudden and immediate shortage of blood flow to the brain! *wicked grin*

gonzo56
08-02-02, 16:58
i meant, she said she does not expect me to test positive. doh!

RN, i only had the hiv test done so far. i know i'm stupid and i should be tested for other std's. but like joe_zop said.....hiv is the one people most worry about and i am no different. i will go get tested for other std's later but for me it is most important to know first that i don't have hiv. because to put it bluntly......i don't want to die.

Darkseid
08-07-02, 14:42
Originally posted by RN
zel66,

I know how nervous you must be. I found myself on the receiving end of a broken condom a couple of times in my working life...a MUCH scarier position to be in mind you! ...and just thought I'd let you know that I never caught a thing. You should really have a full STD screen between three and ten days after a condom breakage, to pick up any of the "minor" nasties that you may have been exposed to. Then you need an HIV test at three months, and again at six months. Try not to panic too much though...as has been said by these guys already, the chances of a man catching HIV from a woman, especially one that insists she uses condoms all the time, are pretty darn slim.

And guys....I have heard too many men here saying "The condom broke. Maybe I should have a test now". As sexually active adults having sex with multiple partners, you should be having REGULAR testing! Don't wait for a condom scare to force you to take responsibility. How about thinking of the risk that YOU present to the HOOKERS for a change. It's pretty darn selfish to expect girls to have constant screening to protect YOUR health, when you guys show so little concern about the sex workers health. A condom breakage may cause YOU a little embarassment and inconvenience when you go and get antibiotics, but it could cost a sex worker one or two months INCOME while she is treated. Or it could end her "career" for good. Do you have any idea how terrified WE are when the condom breaks???

Not trying to be nasty...just making a point :)

I agree that it is more scary for the person on the receiving end of the broken condom than for the giver. The men that the prostitute services do not get tested for diseases. The prostitute in the parlour environment does get tested. The customer is not required to get tested so if the condom breaks, the prostitutes may catch hatever weird stuff he has.
The broken condom thing did happen to me in Brazil, and it happened twice. The first time it happened was with a non-pro I dated on my first trip to Brazil. She was a great first impression of all Brazilian women. After dating her and comparing her to American women, I no longer desired American women. I had sex with her so many times that I had the condom breaking incident. When it broke inside her, it felt strangely better and I ejaculated in her like I do when I wear the condom. When I pulled out, we were both shocked and scared. She was fortunate I didn't have anything weird and that she had the morning after pills available to her (they sell them in the local drug stores in Brazil). I was worried that I would be a father and that she would come to my home carrying a kid that was mine but then she e-mailed me saying she took the morning after pill and that she tested negative for pregnancy. I was relieved. I also tested for diseases on myself so I could make sure I didn't give her any diseases and I tested negative for HIV and the other STDs. I had a complete STD test. I did it for her sake as well as my own because I really liked this girl. I then e-mailed her with the good news.
The second time it happened was with a parlour girl. She was having her period when it happened and she scratched the condom to break it when it happened. Before she scratched the condom, it felt less sensitve but she reached down and scratched the condom and it broke. I felt the greater sensitivity and after a while, I came into her and pulled out my dick with blood all over it. It is not the safest thing to do but at least I know she had been tested each month. This was one of the more expensive high class establishments in Brazil. I still got tested and tested negative. Thank God. This experience would have been a trillion times more scary with a street hooker who I don't know if she was tested and uses IV drugs especially with blood gushing on my cock.

sz_barber
08-07-02, 22:39
any chance of catching AIDS or other STD when I wet-kiss
a hooker ?

Last week when I was with a hooker, she stucked her tongue
into my mouth. I normally dont kiss a hooker, but I couldnt
resist this time and wet-kissed with her for five minutes.
Now I am worried I might still get some diseases even
though I used condom during sex.

Joe Zop
08-08-02, 02:37
The CDC defines kissing as low-risk activity for HIV transmission. There's a really small chance of HIV passing via kissing, but only if both you and your partner have cuts or sores in your mouths or if one does and the kissing is prolonged and intense enough to damage the other's mouth or lips. The bottom line is that saliva doesn't contain or pass HIV. Syphilis can pass via kissing under mostly the same conditions as HIV. The main risks are non-STD -- glandualr fever, mono, and oral herpes is also a possibility, but that's reasonably common, and different from the genital kind.

gonzo56
08-14-02, 23:12
just got back from the clinic. tested negative for hiv! fuck yeah!

Joe Zop
08-15-02, 00:42
Congrats, gonzo! Always great to have peace of mind, even if you intellectually know the odds are in your favor.

gonzo56
08-15-02, 01:24
thanks joe. it's a big relief to know. i am going to make an appointment to be tested for other std's sometime this week. hope those results come out well also.

jeffjimman
09-11-02, 18:35
Viagra + Ecstacy?

I have no problem getting erections with my gf... except when I tried the happy pill: my Johnson withered. It wasn't a big deal, since we were happy anyway, but having sex would definitely be a plus!

So, I wonder if anyone has experice with V+E. Is the full 100mg way too much? Cut it in half? Quarters? Side effects?

Paddy
09-12-02, 17:56
Hi RN and Guys,

I know that a condom will not protect people if hepres, HPV, molluscum and other viruses lie above or outside the condom. I've read that these nasty little viruses often hide in the pubic hair which isn't covered by a condom. It's the direct skin-to-skin contact that causes transmission and if the condom doesn't cover the infected area, you're out of luck. RN has spoken about this before and she's right.

OK, here's my question. I once read somewhere that one can prevent these contact viruses if one immediately washes all around the groin and pubic areas with soap and water after removing the condom??? I asked a dermatologist about this recently and he said it would certainly help. He went one step further and strongly recommended alcohol wipes to kill any viruses on the skin. He said that alcohol would even be more effective than soap and water which is reasonable.

RN, have you ever heard of this before? What are your thoughts?

What do you guys think? Has anyone ever heard of this procedure before? It could really cut down on the transmission of those nasty little viruses if true.

Thanks and it's good to be back!

Prokofiev
09-12-02, 18:54
Paddy,
I have started to use anti-biotic "Handy Wipes" , the kind that come in single use foil to clean your hands. Doubt that they are more effective than anti-B soap but are easier to carry around. I also carry some Nizoral cream (Ketoconazole 2%) which is a prescription anti-B cream that is very effective against fungi and skin-skin contact infections. Ask your dermatologist.

-P

Joe Zop
09-12-02, 19:16
Paddy -- certainly that can help, particularly in the case of herpes and HPV. The whole key is to avoid getting them into your system, and cleaning the skin where exposure has taken place can help minimize the risks. Most place I've seen recommend washing both before and after as a way of minimizing the germs present. If you're combining condoms with sanitizing, along with a visual examination to make sure there are no obvious sores or genital warts, then you are about as safe as you can manage if you're still going to play. Just be careful -- that can sting when you're getting near the sensitive parts! And irritating that area is counterproductive.

Rubber Nursey
09-13-02, 16:01
I'd agree with Joe and Proko, Paddy. (Of course, don't forget I'm not a real RN!) I know myself and other working girls used to shower with Dettol liquid soap after a booking, which is an anti-bacterial body wash. We also left it in the showers so that clients could use it before and after the booking too. I'm not positive about exactly how effective it is in stopping skin-to-skin infections, but my reasoning is that is definitely can't hurt! It makes sense to me that washing off any nasties that haven't yet gained access to your skin, has to be better than doing nothing at all.

The best way to avoid skin-to-skin infections (as Joe mentioned) is a visual inspection. The majority of those types of infections have very visible symptoms, and when sores, etc are present, it is usually the most infectious time. Obviously not all diseases are visible though, and some are only visible SOME of the time (for example, herpes is still infectious during the "shedding" period...shortly after the blisters have healed...but you can't see it). It's worth looking at pictures of various STDs, so you can be sure to pick them up straight away during the inspection. There are some good sites on the net with graphic pictures of various infections. The "dick check" provides added protection for the working girls, so theres no reason why clients shouldn't do the same.

Personally, I'd be careful using powerful things such as alcohol swabs if you are intending on having sex again soon after. (Like in a "two cum" party or an allnighter). That stuff can really irritate your skin, which I would presume may actually make you more susceptible to infection on the second round. That's not medical fact of course, just my opinion. I've seen people break out in a rash from using detergents and anti-bacterial creams that were too strong for their sensitive skin. You might want to try it out prior to actually using it with a working girl, just in case.

Prokofiev
09-14-02, 02:36
RN,
Just wondering, but have you had clients who demanded a visual inspection of your genitals? And if so, how did you feel about it? Insulted? Objectified? Or happy that they actually cared? Most women do NOT seem to like the idea of men inspecting them and this includes professionals. Very often, say at a massage parlor, the women will look at you during the massage or during a shower/body shampoo without making it obvious that they are doing it. Some professional Houses -like La Yegua in Mexico, make it a part of their routine. However, letting you look at them is another matter. They dim the lights and definitely don't want you looking inside. I don't know if they are embarrassed or have something to hide. And I have never had the nerve to demand a close look. How many of you guys actually look closely at a woman before sex? Even with a new girlfriend. Usually the lights are low and to me it would seem unacceptable to turn on all the lights and inspect things first. Just wondering . . . -P

Rubber Nursey
09-14-02, 04:47
proko,

yes, i have had men who asked if they could "have a bit of a look". i have also had men who try to sneak a peek at things as the service starts, but are too shy to ask outright. i would always turn my body a bit for them, to make sure they could see properly. sometimes i would even give those guys a bit of an "excuse" to look at things closely...for example opening my legs and saying "so what do you think?" (sorry, that sounds crass on the board, but it's very different during a service! lol) it gives them a chance to have a good look, and then say something corny like "it looks perfect. seeing it makes me wanna...." instead of having to mention stds at all. often (and this will sound even more crass) i would sit on his chest and bend over towards his penis, raising my bottom in the air. to him it seemed like i was just playing with his dick when i was actually doing a dc, and it also meant that he got a good chance to check me out too! even if a man demanded that i lay down while he checked me out by torchlight...i'd be fine with it. the fact that a man is concerned enough about his own health to actually do an inspection, makes me feel a lot safer.

i do agree that many women might be offended though...i guess that's the difference between someone who approaches the job as a "professional courtesan" and someone who just wants you to do them and get out. i would like to think that i made my clients feel comfortable enough with me to actually ask straight out if they had concerns. i also had nothing to hide.

i never did an actual "dick check" in the whole time i worked. i did what you mentioned...i would blend the check into the service so that the client didn't feel uncomfortable being under scrutiny. once i was sure that there were no visible diseases i would do the "lets turn down the lights a little" thing. i know not all girls will make things so easy for you to take a look, but hopefully there would be enough lights on time for you to at least take a quick peek. if all else fails, i would actually ask outright. if you say it nicely...or even say that you want to look at her because it turns you on...i think most girls would be ok with it.

Prokofiev
09-14-02, 05:32
paddy,
i things i were refering to are actually "wet ones-anti-bacterial" singles. active ingredient=benzethonium cloride .3% don't know if that's good or bad, but they are the size of a condom and i always take them with me.
.
rn,
i keep telling you that you are not the "typical" sex provider. at least not in my experience. i do think many women would be offended and i have yet to find a pro who asked me "what do you think?" with her legs wide open, but i'll keep looking. meantime, i find it interesting that you too used the sneak a peek method rather than just looking directly. hmmm. that's a lot easier for the woman to do since the man is more prominently displayed than a woman. in fact for most women, simply opening their legs would not be sufficient to get a peek inside.

Rubber Nursey
09-14-02, 06:01
Proko,

Really, you shouldn't need to get a look inside. Anything in there will (hopefully) be kept away from you by the condom. It's the outside...inner thighs, buttocks, labia...that's the real risk for skin-to-skin infections. I know it's not the same in all countries, but heaps of Western hookers are now sporting the Brazilian or fully shaven look...you should be able to see every bit of skin that matters. But it is soooo hard to find warts and things in a mass of pubic hair right under a man's balls!! LOL

I prefer a "disguised" DC rather than getting a lamp out and poking and prodding around...it just seems so clinical! Plus, if I have already fondled him, massaged him and made him feel good, there is less chance of things going horribly wrong when I tell him I've found something nasty. By then he's already horny, and he would be more likely to accept a change in service (eg hand relief instead of sex) rather than being told at the outset "Nope, sorry, can't have sex with you. What do you want me to do instead?".

I still think that it's worth a try asking a woman to let you look. If you make out that you think she's diseased she will probably be really pissed off. But if you made it clear that you wanted it to be safe for BOTH of you, she would probably understand...even if she did feel a little uncomfortable about it. Like I said, it is a great relief to know that your client is concerned about his sexual health. The simple fact that you can be sure he won't try and take the condom off during the booking makes the whole service more relaxed.

PS This will sound really gross, but the first symptom that women get in nearly all STD infections...not skin-to-skin ones of course...is an offensive smelling discharge. If things smell really "fishy" down there, (especially if she's just had a shower and she should be smelling fresh) it could be a sign that she has something.

Joe Zop
09-14-02, 06:44
Proko -- I always just tend to make the inspection be part of the game, much in the same way RN approaches it. Usually a few compliments along the line of "I'm sorry, you're incredible, I want a closer look" or something to that effect, combuned with some gentle manual stimulation (being very careful, as many providers are understandably concerned about being roughtly handled or digitally penetrated) will do the trick. Most providers I've been with just seem to take it as part of the stimulus package. I am just looking for the obvious as opposed to doing any kind of really comprehensive check, trusting that the condom will do the majority of the protecting.

luvsmellingit
09-15-02, 07:06
RN,

As a pro, how do you handle requests to eat you out?

I like eating pussy and sucking butt. Do you let a client suck butt?

Rubber Nursey
09-15-02, 08:27
People are going to call me a hypocrite for saying this, but I always allowed oral sex on me. Still would, to this day. Obviously I would NEVER do anything if it looked like there was even a remote chance that he had a coldsore, and I would often refuse men who had stubble or wiry beards. Letting my skin get scratched and irritated before sex would be dangerous.

As for "sucking butt", my butt was TOTALLY out of bounds!! LOL Anal stimulation on me of any kind completely turns me off, and that's not conducive to a mutually enjoyable service. I wasn't the type of girl who would just grin and bear it...if I didn't enjoy it, I didn't do it. My clients had pretty much free reign over my body, and I didn't have too many silly rules about what they could and couldn't touch (girls that say "Yes you can have sex with me, but you can't touch my breasts or my vagina, REALLY confuse me!!). But my backside was the only thing they were not allowed to go near. Mind you, most clients were happy to accept that.

Guess Who
09-16-02, 20:15
RN,
I read your post on the smelly discharge. Interesting enough, however I've been in that situation. Once this girl hopped in my car and I swear it smelled like rotting fish. Needless to say I discharged her out of my car, nicely of course. I used the ol' I forgot my wallet line. One other time was with a girlfriend of mine. I went down on her and almost gagged. She was clean as far as I knew, maybe just bad timing. Eeeeew!

Rubber Nursey
09-17-02, 13:33
LOL GuessWho! YUCK!!

Just for the record, I didn't mean that every woman who has a bad smell going on down there has a disease...just that many infections DO cause a bad smell, and it could be considered a bad sign. But some "clean" women are just unfortunate I guess! (As are the men unlucky enough to find out the hard way!!! LOL)

jeffjimman
09-19-02, 22:25
Hi RN and thanks for posting here!

It's so hard to find stats on the risks of getting diseases -- I'm interested in the incurables, of course, and then you always hear, "well, there's still a risk if you use a condom..." HIV seems very low-risk if you use a condom, but HIV and warts?

So... I don't know if this is stuff you'd like to share, but did you get any diseases, and if so, which ones? And how many times have you had sex with clients? This is just to get a feel for the risks.

Thanks for any info at all.

Jeff

Rubber Nursey
09-20-02, 02:33
thank you jeffjimman :)

ok...i added some stuff up for you and it sounds terrible! lol (i hate thinking about the numbers) i worked fulltime for 5 years but occasionally had a week off here and there, so i worked it out using 4 days a week to try and balance it out. clients would range anywhere from none to 12 in a day, but the average would be about 4 or 5. keep in mind that many of my clients were regulars, so i used 4 clients a day to work it out. (i know it's not very scientific...math is not my forte!) the grand total over 5 years is...*splutter*...4160.

i never caught a disease during the time i was working. that said, you need to realise how careful i was. condoms were totally compulsory...i never once did any service without one. i did a visual check for stds before getting down to business, and if i had found anything i would have turned him down. i was extremely mindful of cuts and scrapes on any part of my body. i used plenty of lube and i am pretty darn well-practiced at using a condom...i only remember 2 incidents where the condom broke out of all those times. i didn't do any fetish stuff that may have drawn blood or which meant i would come in contact with other bodily fluids, eg. "[CodeWord118] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord118)". and i always showered (often with anti-bacterial soap) immediately after the service.

risk is a hard thing to determine though. for instance...what if none of my clients had a disease? that would mean condoms could have leaked or skin may have touched during that time, but i wouldn't have caught anything anyway. perhaps if one of them did have a disease, i would have caught it regardless of how careful i was?

most hookers that i know who have caught something, have caught it from their partners. when you're not at work you are less likely to be strict about condom use, and more likely to have your decisions swayed by lust, trust and/or alcohol. men also tend to let down their guard a bit when they are not in the company of a presumed "drug-addicted, diseased prostitute". i think it was bigwang who referred some time ago to it being like playing russian roulette...some people may be able to put the gun to their head and pull the trigger five times and it doesn't go off, but others will blow their head apart the first time. it's a game of chance really, and the only way to increase your odds is to treat every partner as potentially infected.

Joe Zop
09-20-02, 05:31
Wow, RN, thats quite a stunning number when you actually put it down. And I say that simply to say to guys who are out in the game -- ok, look, if every sex worker you're with were to have similar numbers, and you were to go once a month for a year, then you're potentially exposed close to fifty thousand sex partners! Mind boggling when you think of it this way, and decidedly an argument for being careful.

At one point in the Thai women section people were adding up their partners, and I figured I was probably in the range of 300-400 overall. If all of them had the numbers RN posted, which might well be conservative in the Thai trade (not that the majority of my experience is there) that would mean that I've been exposed to well over a million of my partners' partners. Pretty scary when you think of it. Since it's the obvious question to be asked, no, I've never caught anything, and yes, I am fairly careful.

And all that without even the priviledge of being exposed to RN other than on this board, sigh...

Prokofiev
09-20-02, 06:22
RN,
Those are pretty impressive numbers. Shows what hard work will do for you. In 30+ years of sex I have only recently gone above 100. Some of the guys claim to be well over 1000 partners and I believe them. Here is the weird part- I know the exact numbers and all their names as well! And about half could still be considered friends! Guess I've lived a rather protected life. And I document things excessively.

But here's my question . . . What happened to the $$$? You should have pulled down a pretty good income, but you make it sound like you're broke. Did you pay taxes on the cash? Why did you stop? It sounds as if you enjoyed your work.

Just wondering . . .

Rubber Nursey
09-20-02, 07:47
Well, there's no big secrets, 'coz I've managed to blurt out almost my entire life history on this board already! LOL

Almost $20,000 of it went to paying off my ex-husband's debts, for which I was somehow made legally liable. I completely furnished a four bedroom house from scratch, including ALL the creature comforts. I bought a late model car, and kept upgrading over the five years so I always had the newest model (and they didn't have the time to depreciate and lower the trade-in value). I spent quite a bit of money on work expenses...condoms, toys, lingerie, evening wear, shoes, etc (which is very expensive!), and very large amounts went on daycare for the kids, plus after-hours childcare. I also paid my way through three diploma courses, and two certificate courses (I left school at 15 and had NO qualifications when I started working). Believe it or not, I also gave quite a bit of money to various charities, and I helped out my friends and my sisters when they needed it. And I had a kid in school to pay for.

It actually doesn't add up to quite as much money as it sounds though...we don't get the prices here that girls do in America. At best, we got about $120 an hour, and then paid tax and shift fees and sometimes drivers fees out of that. I often did the "specials" too (in an attempt to attract regular customers), where I got paid very little money at all. For example, at one stage the house was offering $70 for 20 minutes...I got $45 out of that, and still had to pay shift fees and tax. Not even street girls do it for that little!! LOL Plus, obviously sex workers don't get sick leave or holiday pay, so when you stop work for any reason, it eats up any savings you may have.

As for why I quit...I blurted that in another section not long ago. I got cervical cancer, had numerous biopsies and other tests and ended up having surgery...all of which meant I couldn't work for a long time. I also got a "normal" job, and it now takes up too much of my time to do anything else! The main reason I'm broke now is because I took a lot of time off both jobs when I was going backwards and forwards to hospital, and thanks to the ridiculous amounts of credit I took out while I was a sex worker (hoping to build up my credit rating, and never thinking that I may be forced out of the industry by my health), I now live way beyond my means.

And yes...I loved my job. And I miss it a lot. :)

Rubber Nursey
09-20-02, 08:42
And Joe...you can "expose" yourself to me anytime babe. I can just picture you in your long, beige trenchcoat..... ;)

jeffjimman
09-26-02, 00:34
Thanks RN! Your post is reassuring. Being careful pays big!

I just wonder about your cervical cancer. I remember hearing that that could be link to some viruses. Any thoughts?

Jeff

HarryR
09-26-02, 02:47
I have used many working girls over the years, mostly in New Zealand as I don't travel very much now. I hate condoms and have on many times gone without protection and the only thing I have ever caught is NSU from a girlfriend over 25 years ago. I have developed a "system" which has never let me down and I "know" when it is "safe" to go without protection. I get regular check ups. I know I am playing with fire, but that is me. I am single now and I try to get as many girls to pose for photos that are posted on a pay site. So sometimes, it works out that I am getting it for free.

If I had the backing, I would do that full time.

LONG LIVE THE BB RIDER! (Hopefully)

Rubber Nursey
09-26-02, 12:45
Jeffjimman...you're welcome. :)

The virus you are talking about that is often linked to cervical cancer is HPV (genital warts). There are many, many different wart viruses, but not all of them increase the risks of cervical cancer. The two highest risk types are numbers 16 and 18. If a woman tests positive to either of those types, she will need to start having very frequent pap smears because she is at much greater risk of cervical cancer. Here's something for you guys to think about too...types 16 and 18 rarely (if ever) cause visible warts. You will not know you have them until you are tested for them. This might seem fine for you...not warts, no problems...but keep in mind that if you pass the virus onto a woman, you will have greatly increased her chances of dying of cervical cancer.

However, not everyone who has HPV will get cervical cancer, and not everyone with cervical cancer has HPV. Doctors are still not sure exactly what causes it. Like most cancers, other risk factors include smoking, diet and genetic predispositions. There have been suggestions that the age when you first had sex and the age when you first gave birth can be risk factors. The biggest link (strangely enough) seems to be penile penetration. Nuns and lesbians rarely get cervical cancer, and the more men you have slept with, the greater your chances are of developing it. I was told by an oncologist that sex workers are the most "at risk" group of women when it comes to cervical cancer. Of course, the greater the number of partners you've had, the greater the chances are that you have contracted HPV...but even cervical cancer sufferers who are NOT HPV+ seem to still report high numbers of sex partners.

And I know you are dying to ask...no, I am not HPV positive. :) But the wart virus is one of the most prevalent in our society, and in the interest of your wife/girlfriend/sex worker's lives, it's something that you should be tested regularly for if you are sexually active...especially if you aren't always using condoms. And don't forget that HPV is transmitted skin-to-skin, so condoms are not necessarily going to give you effective protection anyway.

(Can you tell I just did an STI training refresher course this week?? LOL)

Paddy
10-01-02, 04:13
Hi RN,

In reference to your 9-20 posting you revealed that you never caught any type of disease. I'm greatly impressed. Good for you.

When one uses a condom at all times and correctly it negates everything covered by the latex. However, what about areas NOT covered by the condom and skin-to skin contact near the lower abdomen that can lead to Herpes, HPV, Molluscum and other viruses?

You stated that you always used an anti-bacterial soap afterward. In your opinion, did this anti-bacterial soap wash off the potential viruses and insulate you as a result from getting infected? What's your opinion?

I guess that my greatest fear is contracting Herpes or HPV outside of the latex barrier around the groin or lower abdomen. Herpes and HPV cannot be cured and represent (it seems) the greatest threat for condom users. If we could solve this problem sex with a Pro would be almost risk free for both parties. Any other hints beyond anti-bacterial soap???

Thanks for your expertise as always.

Joe Zop
10-01-02, 05:54
Just as an aside on the issue of anti-bacterial soaps -- it's probably worth noting that in reality ALL soaps are anti-bacterial for the most part, and according to one study, the use of specifically labelled anti-bacterial soap basically increases the effectiveness of germ killing from 99.4% to 99.6%. So people shouldn't really feel they have to run around carrying their own little bottles of anti-bacterial in order to be safe from surface gremlins -- a good washing with regular soap is for all intents and purposes just as effective.

Paddy
10-01-02, 13:04
Hi Joe,

Yes, I've read the same thing in reference to anti-bacterial vs. regular soap. Studies indicate that there is no real difference.

To take matters on step further, my Dermatologist stated that using alcohol wipes to cleanse the non-covered condom areas around the groin and lower abdomen would be even more effective that soap in terms of killing viruses. What do you think?

Admittedly, it would look a bit strange wiping yourself with alcohol towelettes after sex. The girl is going to be wondering what this crazy American is up to now?

Joe Zop
10-01-02, 13:14
Alcohol wipes might be more effective, but there are two things -- first, how much more effective does one really need than the 99.4% of germ killing that regular soap does, and second, frequent use of alcohol wipes on sensitive areas not only doesn't sound like much fun but it might also cause irritation, which would actually increase your risk should you go a second round.

The girl's gonna wonder even more about the crazy American if he wipes himself off and then hops around saying, "Ow!" :)

Paddy
10-01-02, 19:01
Touche!!!

Peterman
10-05-02, 10:31
Hi RN,

Been reading your post. I would love to hear your opinion on the following story.
Without naming names, I read about a guy that travels all over the world (mainly southeast asia) having sex, WITHOUT CONDOMS, and then writes the what,when and where about it. I am assuming the #s are in the thousands. He insists he has never had a STD or tested pos. for AIDS. What he says he does is "pound down a beer" before he has sex and immediately after sex he withdraws, takes a good healthy [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140), washes his penis with anti-bacterial soap. Next, he uses Hydrogen Peroxide to rinse it. Then he spreads open his penis and forces some Hydrogen Peroxide up his urethra as far as possible.
What is your take on this?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Peterman

Rubber Nursey
10-05-02, 12:30
Hiya Peterman,

I might just take this opportunity to add (for those who didn't know me before my handle change) that although I HAVE done extensive professional training in STIs, I am NOT a nurse. It's just coincidence that RN also stands for Registered Nurse. Just so you know... :)

Anyway, I would say that the guy you described is either a) incredibly stupid and probably lying about not catching anything or b) incredibly lucky. I mean..it's certainly possible. Men, being the insertive partner, are less at risk of disease than women are. And even if you had slept with 5000 women, if it happened that none of those particular girls had a disease, then you wouldn't catch anything anyway. On the other hand, you may only sleep with ONE woman and catch herpes. Luck of the draw.

Personally though, I find it very hard to believe. But I don't know enough about it to cast judgement. For instance, how often does he get tested? Some infections clear up by themselves. If for example, he had molluscum or genital warts, it's possible that he could have caught it, spread it around half of southeast Asia, and then got rid of it, BEFORE he even had a test done. And he says he has never tested positive for HIV...could that be because he has never had a test at all? (I'm not saying that is the case of course...just that it's a possibility). And if he IS being tested and his last test was less than six months ago, he could have it right now and not know it yet, thanks to the window period. Either way HIV is a lot harder to catch than most infections, so to sleep with heaps of people and not catch it, really isn't a major achievement.

Peroxide in the eye of the penis has gotta be one of the most counter-productive methods I've ever heard of. (Plus, the thought of it brings tears to my eyes...and I don't even have a penis!! LOL) I would think that it would burn all hell out of your dick, leaving it raw and inflamed and just begging for some nasty bug to creep in there next time you have sex. Washing up after sex certainly can't hurt at all, and pissing straight after sex helps prevent cystitis in women and "cleans out" the urethra for men so that's also a good idea, but I wouldn't rely on it to stop disease transmission. Like I said though...I'm not really a nurse.

Paddy,
Everything we enjoy comes with a certain degree of risk. Drinking can cause hangovers, smoking can cause cancer, and skydiving can cause rather large amounts of pain if the parachute doesn't open! LOL There are heaps of consequences to having sex, from infections to pregnancy...and yet we continue to do it. I think there is a fine line between being concerned for your health, and worrying yourself into abstinence. Sex is not ever "safe". We can do our best to make it SAFER, but there will always be the chance that something will go wrong. It doesn't matter whether you're with a hooker or your wife...you can never really be sure unless you can guarantee you know their sexual history and/or their health status at that EXACT moment (not a month ago when they had the test, but they've slept with five people since). All you can do is use condoms and check for visible signs of infection before you have sex. Maybe scrubbing with soap is good too, maybe it does nothing at all. I don't know for sure, but washing off any germs on your skin before they "take hold" makes sense to me....and it certainly can't do any harm!

When it comes down to it though, the only way to be TOTALLY safe is complete abstinence. And I for one am not willing to take my sexual health quite THAT seriously!! LOL

Ferolga777
10-09-02, 03:18
washing your winky with hydrogen peroxide seems like a good idea until you do it and then you realize that it wasn't [experience speaking here]

AssMaster
10-10-02, 19:27
i'm sure this has been asked many times before, but i can't seem to find the answer so please bare with me.

how dangerous is it to receive a bbbj? i have a hard time believing it is dangerous since they do it in pornos while using condoms for anal and vaginal sex. it doesnt make sense that they would bother using condoms if it didnt matter any way since they were exposing themselves by doing oral. porno makers are losing millions for using condoms.

Joe Zop
10-11-02, 05:22
I'll quote RN from a previous message -- "Blowjobs without a condom...you can get chlamydia, gonohorrea, herpes, and a few other nasties. WITH a condom, you can still get herpes if her lips touch your balls or base of the penis. "

So, yes, there's a risk, but it's considerably lower, and with the exception of herpes, all of those are curable. You're missing the big three -- HIV, syphilis and hepatitis.

Banana Joe
10-11-02, 13:40
Sex with a Twist ... Lemons Provide Protection?
Thu Oct 10, 8:44 AM ET

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australian scientists believe they have rediscovered an effective use for lemon juice -- as a contraceptive and also a killer of the AIDS (news - web sites) virus.

Reproductive physiologist Roger Short, from the University of Melbourne's obstetrics department, said a few drops of lemon juice can be a cheap, easy-to-use solution to protect women from both HIV (news - web sites) and pregnancy.

The juice should be squeezed onto a piece of sponge or cotton wool and placed into the vagina before sex, he said.

"We can show in the lab that lemon juice is very effective in immobilizing human sperm and also very effective in killing HIV," Short told Australian Broadcasting Corp television in a science program to be shown later on Thursday.

He said lime juice, which has similar acid levels, can also be used, with both fruits often freely available in poor countries where contraception is hard to come by.

Short said laboratory tests found not only does lemon juice kill sperm, it also kills the AIDS virus itself.

Short said using lemon juice as a contraceptive was not a new idea but it had fallen by the wayside over the years.

The ancient douche-style contraceptive was encouraged by such luminaries as Casanova, renowned for his sexual prowess.

"This has been used for hundreds of years and we've just forgotten about it," said Short, who is planning to conduct some field trials in Thailand.

"About 300 years ago, Mediterranean women used lemon juice as their main method of contraception."

Banana Joe
10-11-02, 13:46
HIV And Lemons: Sour But Safe

Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg) NEWS
October 4, 2002

By Tom Learmont
Johannesburg

A scientist has proved that lemon juice kills the HI virus on contact

After investigating traditional contraceptive techniques, an eminent Australian-based scientist has proved that lemon juice diluted five to one with water kills HIV and sperm within seconds.

Roger Short's findings will be made public in a scientific paper read at The Ninth International Symposium on Spermatology at the University of the Western Cape next week.

Symposium convener Professor Gerhard van der Horst is excited by the discovery of a cheap, universally available, non-technical way to block HIV transmission, and describes Short's paper as "a milestone".

A woman whose husband insists on "nyama to nyama" can protect herself against HIV transmission with a small sponge and watered-down lemon juice, perhaps leaving him none the wiser. Men may also anoint themselves with the acidic juice to prevent transmission.

The abstract of the paper says: "Historically, lemon juice on a sponge, or half a lemon placed over the cervix, was widely used as an effective contraceptive. We have shown that 20% lemon juice (final concentration) in human semen irreversibly immobilises 100% of sperm in less than 30 seconds. A similar concentration also rapidly inactivates HIV. Thus intra-vaginal lemon juice might provide a cheap, readily available and extremely effective way of stopping the sexual transmission of HIV, whilst also providing contraception."

The paper refers to additional strategies, including circumcision for men, which more than halves the risk of HIV infection. The virus appears to enter the penis via specific HIV-receptive Langerhans cells on the inner surface of the foreskin. The vagina has its own Langerhans cells that are also the main entry point for HIV in women.

Thickening the vaginal epithelium by oestrogen administration could provide cheap, safe and effective HIV protection for women, but drug firms are not interested, says Short.

Based at the University of Melbourne, Short is also professor-at-large at Cornell University in the United States, and a visiting fellow of Green College, Oxford. His career began in England at Cambridge in 1956. He was co-editor and principal author of the eight-volume Reproduction in Mammals published by Cambridge University Press from 1972 onward, which was translated into six languages.

The lemon juice breakthrough is not the first scientific bombshell he has lobbed. He was part of the Cambridge University team that crossed a camel with a llama in Dubai. He also co-authored a physiological study presenting strong evidence that the elephant was an aquatic mammal in an earlier evolutionary phase. He has published more than 300 scientific papers and, with Dr Malcolm Potts, wrote a bestseller aimed at the layman: Ever Since Adam and Eve: The Evolution of Human Sexuality (1999).

After researching circadian rhythms in mammals, Short took out US and European Union patents on the use of the chemical messenger melatonin to counteract the adverse effects of air and space travel. Melatonin has been tested aboard the Russian space station Mir, and is recommended to all Nasa astronauts. The patents are licensed to US drug giant Eli Lilly at present, through the Australian company Circadian Technologies.

Short's interest in the transmission of HIV infection arose naturally from his research activities of the past 20 years, which focused on contraception, the evolution of human reproduction and the causes of the Earth's overpopulation.

paganslave
10-19-02, 21:47
CONDOMS

We all use them. Most of us HATE them but are too afraid to take the risk without them. With the thousands of men reviewing this board. Which do you like the best? I for one am looking for better sensation.

Rubber Nursey
10-20-02, 15:57
Paganslave,
Unfortunately every darn condom has a different name in every country. In Australia, the best ones I've used are Durex Fetherlite. Obviously I can't say what they're like for guys from experience ('coz I'm not a man!) but I can say that they are really popular here among clients. Also, a lot of working girls use them in their private lives. They conduct heat REALLY well. This is gonna sound a bit graphic, but when a man cums inside me wearing one, I can literally FEEL it coming out. First time it happened, I thought the condom had broken! If it conducts heat so well from my end, I'm guessing it does the same for the man wearing it.

I think, (from memory), America has a brand called Trojan Ultra-thins that does the same thing. Go to www.condomania.com and search for either "ultra-thin" or "extra-sensitive". You should be able to find a brand that's available in your country.

PS...Another tip for extra comfort is to always wear the right sized condom. If it's too big it will bunch up when you have sex, and if it's too small it will cut off the circulation and delay ejeculation. (Plus they are more likely to break or slip off). If you find a condom you really like and you want a working girl to use it, take a brand new, UNOPENED box of them with you. Many girls will not use condoms that you've brought with you otherwise.

Joe Zop
10-20-02, 17:48
I'm curious about the last statement, RN -- why won't those sex workers you mention use condoms from an open box, considering the individual ones are still wrapped? I presume it's a fear they've been somehow tampered with but why exactly would a guy want to do that, considering that he's still going to be wearing it, and thus still losing the degree of sensation that comes with that? Is there some sort of history here?

Rubber Nursey
10-21-02, 00:26
For starters, we don't know where it's been! Condoms need to be kept in cool, dark places or they become brittle. For all we know, the condom could have been in the guy's wallet for a year or sitting in the glovebox of his car in the summer heat. The Health Dept will not allow stores to swap/refund condoms for that reason...for example if you accidentally bought ribbed condoms instead of plain, the shop will not allow you to exchange them.

The other reason is there are men who would prefer to go bareback, and are willing to do anything to achieve it. If you take a look in the archives (I wish I could remember the idiot's name...but he actually 'claimed' to be a doctor!!), you will find a guy who TOLD men to put pinpricks in condoms to increase the risk of them breaking during sex.

Obviously not all girls will refuse condoms that guys bring with them, especially those in other countries I guess, but a Western "professional" will be unlikely to use them unless they're still in the box (and preferably with the store receipt!) Sounds fussy I know, but we are more at risk than you boys are if the condom is unreliable. :)

Joe Zop
10-21-02, 02:07
Hmm, well, do you only eat food or drink beer you store as well, or will you accept that brought to you by someone else? By that logic were I to want to increase the risk of condom brittleness I could just leave the whole box out in the sun or in the glove compartment, or stick them on top of or next to a heating vent, and it's easy enough to just buy a new box for a recent receipt. I could go out and buy or get access to a shrink-wrap machine and/or glue gun to make opened packages look new. If I truly want to present a damaged condom as one that's pristine, there's very little to stop me.

I absolutely understand the risk issues, and we've been in enough discussions that you know I'm well aware of the medical aspects, but there's also a point at which precaution becomes paranoia and breeds mistrust, which can do nothing but negatively impact the vibe, and which I believe can also thereby increase the risk, as stress also has something to do with resistance. If I were with a provider who only wanted to use her own particular condom, which I'm generally only going to see as a separated single, and which I also have no great idea about storage or care, as opposed to one of mine which is clearly torn from a sequence or the second one from an almost-full box, and she were to tell me something of that sort, I expect I'd both be half-waiting for a scam to ensue or basically be waiting from the beginning to be told to hurry up and come or that only this that or the other was going to happen, since it would be clear that the provider didn't trust me, and had no great concern or respect for me in the equation.

I've had providers who do only wrapped blows tell me that they prefer this or that condom because of taste or texture, and others who stated preference for this or that brand for sensation, allergy, or comfort issues, and that's fine and I never press the issue, but it's always been light and fairly optional. I've never had anyone outright refuse to use one I brought -- including a fair number of "Western professionals."

And regardless of the basic statistics about who gets what from whom, the bottom line from my perspective as someone who practices fairly safe sex is that whatever sex professional I'm with has had a far greater number of partners than I have, and that I'm therefore also exposed to any idiot who wants to put pin-pricks in condoms (or manages to convince the temporary partner I'm with not to use them by waving around enough cash.) So I have my own levels of concern and need for control -- I don't care about the stats; as someone in this situation who's engaging in multiple-partner activity with someone whose sexual history I've no great insight into, I'm also at risk and it's not something I see as an occupational hazard for which I'm getting compensated.

I know the "clients can be idiots and assholes" side of things, but I've been in enough situations with sex workers who don't know squat about what kinds of lubrication increase the risk of breakage that I don't have undue faith in the safe-sex education of my hired partner either.

Rubber Nursey
10-21-02, 08:35
The 'BYO condoms in a new box' thing is something quoted by workers in Oz, America, Canada and England. I have also seen men tell each other, on boards like this, that THEY have been told the same thing by working girls. I was just passing it on. To tell the truth, I have never personally had a client bring his own condoms for me to use. However, I do think that I would refuse him if he whipped one out of his pocket. I know that *I* have looked after my condoms correctly and I can't really be certain about his, so for my own protection I will only use the ones I'm certain about. HE doesn't know whether I look after MY condoms or not either...but that's not my problem. *grin* As the service provider, *I* am required to have the appropriate personal protective equipment available and I am required to know how to use it properly. (And I hold governments and law enforcement solely responsible for the fact that there are sex workers who don't know the first thing about safe sex). You can't provide your own syringes or gloves when you go to a doctor...you can't bring your own needles when you get a tattoo...

Anyway, I like to have my own condoms that I know taste good! :)

paganslave
10-21-02, 20:10
RN and Joe_zop,
Thanks for the info. Currently ALL of the working gals that I've been with have expected me to have a condom. (Portugal, Central Asia, Turkey, and Germany) Interesting. Out of curiosity, RN, which tastes the best to you?

Rubber Nursey
10-22-02, 11:21
Germany as well? Wow...I would kinda expect it from the other countries you mentioned, but I didn't realise it was like that in Germany. I don't know much about the industry in Germany, and I guess I pictured it as similar to Amsterdam and other European places. Out of interest...and I 'spose I probably already know the answer, but I'm gonna ask anyway...if the guy doesn't bring a condom, what happens then? Do the girls just do it without?

As for tasty condoms, there's a brand here called Glyde that make Vanilla, Wildberry and Blueberry flavoured condoms...they are soooo yummy! They taste just like lollies (or candy or whatever you call them where you live!), and they smell delicious too. The lubricant on regular condoms tastes pretty foul, so if there's no flavoured ones around I will go for whatever condoms have the least lubricant on them.

But please guys, don't EVER give a girl a condom that's got spermicide on it!!! Every working girl I've ever known has put one of them in her mouth...ONCE. It's not something you'd ever be stupid enough to do twice! LOL They burn your tongue and make your lips go numb, and the taste stays in your mouth for hours no matter how many times you rinse it. Ewwwwwwwww.

ChrisC30
10-22-02, 17:54
RN -

The lubricants used can get on guys' nerves too. I've used brands where the lubricant started to get a rather pungent odor after a fair amount of condom use (or was it my imagination?).

I'd be interested as well what these girls do if you didn't bring a condom. If I was wary of pregnancy, STD, germs of any kind, as any normal person should be, I'd sure as hell carry a pack in my purse, even if I expected the guy to bring them.

Whenever I've used a condom that was "non-standard", I've made it very clear to my partner (paid or unpaid) what I'd be slipping on BEFORE she got the nasty surprise of an unpleasant or unusual sensation/taste.

Cmon guys, just because we pay them for their bodies, don't be rude and put something noxious in their mouths.

Joe Zop
10-22-02, 18:42
It's an interesting problem regarding lube, isn't it, though since Nonoxynol 9 now appears to have nothing to do with preventing HIV infection and may actually expose women to more danger, spermacide really can't be recommended in any event. So, RN, you're saying that from a sex worker perspective, you absolutely prefer the unlubed kinds, right?

Chris, you've spent time in SE Asia, and you know that lack of a brought condom in that region means a) nothing's going to happen and the deal's off or b) the woman is going to offer to do without or c) she will actually have a condom, but seeks to save money by using yours or most definitely d) it's time to stop panting and run the the store.

And given that prior to the recent UN study regarding Nonoxynol that it was highly recommended to use those kinds of condoms, this is something that didn't get nearly enough play, especially given not only the clear counterindications for use but the basically very nasty taste involved. I suspect very few people really have it in their brains yet (and it's certainly nothing the industry is trumpeting) that they should probably avoid condoms with spermicide for disease protection, and it's unclear just how effective the combo is at preventing pregnancy above and beyond simple condom use.

paganslave
10-22-02, 19:56
RN,
The answer is as you expect. No condom, no problem. The ball falls clearly into the guys court. STIs are very much on the rise in Central Asia. I was last in Uzbekistan in 2001 and heard that the HIV rate is actually being suppressed by the government.

Rubber Nursey
10-24-02, 09:23
Chris,
"Cmon guys, just because we pay them for their bodies, don't be rude and put something noxious in their mouths."
That was so sweet! :) I have to admit, being an Aussie (where we certainly don't rely on a man to supply the condom), I have nobody to blame but myself for the spermicide experience! I realised I'd left my supplies in the car just as I was going into a booking, and I accepted an offer of an emergency condom from a new girl. I should have known better...new girls always seem to carry those darn things! LOL

Joe,
"...you're saying that from a sex worker perspective, you absolutely prefer the unlubed kinds, right?"
Personally, yes. I can't stand the taste of pre-lubricated condoms! (Unless it's flavoured lube on flavoured condoms, of course!) And really, as far as the 'sex worker perspective' goes, lubricating condoms is completely redundant. There is not enough lube on them to actually decrease the risk of breakages, so you need to add extra lube anyway. I would much prefer to have unlubricated condoms for French, and then I can just add my own lube for the sex. I guess pre-lubricated condoms are a good idea for "normal" people though, who don't necessarily always have a bottle of lube near the bed (or for street based workers). A little bit of lube on the condom would be better than none at all.

re: the Nonoxynol-9 findings...our local SW agency has long recommended that working girls shouldn't use them. It may have been ok for the average person who has sex once a week or so, but when you're having sex 6 or 7 times a day, the side-effects are more than obvious. Complaints range from an increased incidence of thrush, right up to such severe burning that sex is no longer possible for the rest of the shift (depending on the woman's sensitivity to it). I never used them myself...because I figured they would taste bad (and then found out the hard way that I was right! LOL)...but a lot of new girls use them when they start, thinking that it must be the safest thing to do. More experienced workers will usually tell them to go buy some normal ones, because the spermicide will end up making them sore.

køsmik
10-26-02, 02:41
i'm very new at this hobby --- in fact only have *three* experiences total...

Each time the girl provided an extremely thin Red condom
that fits snuggly around your base but is loose enough
--- and sheer enough --- that it doesn't even feel like yer wearing one !!

The last time i used condoms --- back in the '70s --- they were so thick and tight that the old "taking a shower in a raincoat" analogy really made sense

But *THESE* are Incredible !!!

Does anyone out there know what BRAND these new ones are ???

jeffjimman
11-10-02, 00:09
What is a dental dam? Something that makes it safe to eat a woman? How does it work? Alternatives? What about just using some ceran wrap from the kitchen?

jeff

Loafer
11-11-02, 07:17
after an unprotected sex encounter, do i have to wait for a certain period before i see the doctor, or can a diagnosis be made immediately afterwards? obviously i am not talking about HIV, but the more "regular" stuff like chlamydia or the clap.

thanks for your input.

Lew Archer
11-11-02, 13:12
I would contact a doctor or Public Health Clinic and ask them immediately:

1) You would want baseline results (to make sure you do not have anything now, also, if anything develops, you'd be able to tell it was from this encounter)

2) The doctor/clinic will tell you symptoms to watch for and tell you when to come in for tests. Tests are constantly being updated and improved. Many test results now take minutes or hours to obtain.

Organicgrowth
11-17-02, 23:04
Loafer,

Get the base-line test done TODAY.

Lew Archer is absolutely right in all that he has said. Anyone in this circumstance owes it to themselves and others to get a base-line.

Believe it or not, I have my own bloods and bacterial profile done every six months. Admittedly that’s extreme, but then I work in a hospital, know the G.U.M. & Haemo boys and so the tests are free. For a regular monger I would urge a base-line at least every 12 to 18 months…

Regards,

Havanaman

Loafer
11-18-02, 04:10
thanks guys.

what i actually wanted to know is: how long does it take for bacteria to become traceable in a test, on the basis of only one single unprotected sex encounter.

admittedly an academic question for regular mongers, but perhaps of some interest to those who have this one-off "accident". if there is a possibility of getting tested too early, it might create a wrong feeling of comfort in case the test result was negative.

Lew Archer
11-18-02, 05:02
There are many factors to knowing when a virus or bacteria is first traceable in the bloodstream (assuming the person is totally "clear" of anything prior to being exposed):

1) The virus/bacteria one is trying to detect (how fast does it replicate to the point when it is detectable?). There is a general range of time for each virus/bacteria if one searched the texts. The time is listed as a range because there are other factors such as. . .

2) The body's immune response to foreign invaders . . . Many viruses/bacteria are not detected directly but as an apect of noticing antibodies and/or the immune response to that bacteria.

Also, such things as the 3) Type of test being used and the turnaround time for such a test. A test maybe able to detect a type of bacteria within 24 hours for instance, but may cost 10x the cost of a test your physician may use that takes 3 days for instance.

To cut this long and complicated post short, listen to Havanaman and get tested NOW. Anything which you fear you may have is detectable by now. You can tell the physician when the suspected infection occurred (date of the sexual contact), and the physician can tell you whether a repeat test will be necessary. For your peace of mind, you may want to take repeat tests in 6 months anyway.

Organicgrowth
11-21-02, 23:49
Lew Archer’s explanations are correct. Nicely done. I would totally endorse his 6 month re-test recommendation.

Loafer, as you can see from Lew’s post, it's hard to give you a definitive time line, however work on 7 – 10 days for bacterial / fungal infections. Genitourinary viral infections take a lot longer to establish, and will depend on class of virus. If you’re thinking the of the worst-case scenario: don’t! As simplistic as it may sound: “think healthy”, “get and stay in shape” (if you need to…) and if you don’t already, start taking multi-vits-mineral supplements daily. Our general health-status helps to not only keep us “healthy” (sorry!), but also fight infections (viral, bacterial and fungal).

Hey, I know how to sell being healthy! Listen to this: if you are at your peak of health for your age: your erections will be harder, and they will last longer. Your stamina will also last longer and you will ejaculate volumes! Need any more incentive?

Regards,
Havanaman

buddybingo
12-18-02, 23:35
A few quick questions for any medical professionals who may be reading the board:

How long before a person who has been exposed to gonorrhea is contagous to others?
What would be a more effective means of transmitting gonorrhea: having one's face spit upon by an infected person? Unprotected oral sex on a male? Open mouth kissing an infected person? or Placing an unprotected finger in an infected vagina?

I understand that these may be difficult questions to answer and that science may not be exact but I'm curious about the relative likliehoods of each and am trying to settle a bet/convince some one that the disease is not something to be toyed with and that treatment is absolutely necessary.

Thanks.

Rubber Nursey
12-19-02, 10:18
I will leave the transmission methods, etc, to the medical professionals, but I do want to say something about just how "absolutely necessary" treatment really is.

Women rarely develop symptoms of Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia. That means that unless the women you sleep with are regularly tested, they could have the disease for months...even years...before they find out. During that time, Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia can cause PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease), which can be very dangerous. PID is not only extremely painful, but it could also kill her. If the infection itself doesn't kill her, PID can leave her with internal scarring which could lead to either a) infertility, meaning she may never have children, or b) ectopic pregnancies, which if not caught in time could kill her. If the woman was pregnant when infected, or gets pregnant before she finds out she has it, the effects of gonorrhoea can be devastating for the baby.

Men often consider Gonorrhoea a "minor" infection. And a lot of the time for MEN...it is. But as you can see, the effects are not so minor for the women that an infected man sleeps with. For their PARTNER'S sake, men should always take Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia very seriously. Please assure your friend that an STI that can cause the DEATH of one of his female partners, is definitely not something to be "toyed with".

buddybingo
12-21-02, 19:43
Thanks for the info, RN. I'm trying to convince a "friend" that her actions, no matter what she does, can be harmful and she needs to checked out and treated. She's sure that some practices are considerably less harmful to engage in than others. That may be true but why not just get the treatment and move on. She's convinced that if she doesn't have "sex" (I don't always know what people mean when they use that term...) she won't pass it on and can still apply her trade without fear of infecting others. That's reason for the transmission questions. If anyne else can provide some additional insight, I'd appreciate it.

ChrisC30
12-23-02, 05:26
Too many unfeeling assholes out there caring more for their own pleasure and safety, not giving a damn about the service girls' wellbeing.

There are those who will say that men don't have to care, but I for one do. If we aren't atleast showing them a basic form of human sympathy and kindness, we could put them all out of action. We don't want that now do we?

XXL
12-24-02, 00:45
STDs (from someone who's been there, bought the T-shirt)

My impression - and my personal experience - is that you mainly get these things through intercourse.

1) Gonorrhoea has a quick onset (1 or 2 days). Acute symptoms, easy to (self)-diagnose, whitish discharge, burning sensation when pissing. If caught in South-East Asia, the strain may be resistant to most drugs, so cefixime is the oral drug to take (400 mg once, twice at the most).

2) Chlamydia has a delayed onset (days, typically one week). Classical treatment is with tetracycline (e.g. Vibramycine) and should last at least 10 days. Symptoms are subdued. No discharge, only itching or slight pain when pissing.

Problem: gonorrhoea is can be transmitted together with chlamydia but Cefixime and tetracyclines should not be taken simultaneously because they reduce one another's effectiveness.

Solution (for short stays): treat gonorrhoea immediately you think you've got it, as under 1 above. On last day of stay(day of the last fuck), swallow 400mg cefixime even if there are no symptoms. This closes the gonorrhoea account, so to speak. When home, wait for two days for the cefixime to get washed out, then go 10 days on tetracycline to take care of any Chlamydia.

This leaves out syphilis, which I haven't experienced yet, thank heavens for that. From what I've gathered, the tetracycline may do more harm than good here because it can mask the dermatological tell-tale signs of syphilis, yet might not be sufficient to eradicate it. What can be done is to get oneself tested for syphilis whenever one does an aids test.

Herpes? This one is supposed to be ubiquitous. Indeed, I was diagnosed with herpes antibodies in my blood years ago, so I had at least one fuck with a herpes carrier in my life. Never had any symptom, though. Probably highly variable from person to person.

Rubber Nursey
12-26-02, 16:31
Buddybingo,

I'm sorry...I presumed your "friend" was a man. Is she a working girl, or are you talking about some other sort of trade where fluids may be transmitted?

If she is a working girl, I have to admit that the risks of her infecting someone else if she's not doing sex, are extremely slim. Condoms are excellent protection against gonorrhoea.
(I should say though that lots of "massage only" girls rub their genitals against the man's genitals during a body-to-body massage, and that could prove almost as risky as intercourse).
If she has gonorrhoea, it would be pretty safe for her to give BJs and have sex using a condom (providing the condom doesn't break of course), BUT she could infect her clients with gonorrhoea of the throat if they go down on her. Likewise, if SHE had gonorrhoea of the throat, she could infect clients if she was giving them BBBJs. I'm not sure about risks associated with kissing, etc, in the case of gonorrhoea of the throat, but if the infection is "down below" there shouldn't be any real risk in activities that don't involve genitals touching. Massage, hand relief, and even the clients fingering her would be safe...although he should probably watch what he does with his fingers afterwards!

Still, like I said in my last post, gonorrhoea and chlamydia can be very, very dangerous for women. She needs to realise that if she has it, she simply MUST get treatment for her own sake. It's as simple as a ten day course of antibiotics. And here's something else for her to think about...

Most married men do not tell their wives that they are visiting sex workers, so wives have no reason to ever have an STI test done. What that means is that if a working girl gives gonorrhoea or chlamydia to a client, he could give it to his wife and she probably won't find out she has it until it's too late. By that time the damage may already be done. I don't know about your "friend", but *I* certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for doing that to another woman. (Oh...and don't forget all the other WORKING GIRLS that client may infect as well!!) For anyone...working girl or not...to know that they have an infection and do nothing about it, is extremely irresponsible and in my opinion, outright selfish.

Turbolover
12-27-02, 10:41
Breast Kissing Risks???

New subject for forum?

I love to do this as a prelude, but...
1. Is anything generally transferable from the nipple?
2. If someone else did same before, how long do salivary germs stay active on a *dry* surface like the nipple and breast?

Prokofiev
12-29-02, 03:14
I have heard of HIV being present in mothers milk and you can get milk from non-nursing women, but usually only a little. I would think this is almost a 100% safe activity provided you are not injesting milk and even then would be 99.999 safe. Go for it.

ChrisC30
01-04-03, 23:26
Now a body-to-body massage sounds exciting right about now.

;-)

TrashMan
01-05-03, 05:39
I have a question for anybody that has real knowledge and not just amateur hour bullshit so this goes to the true health professionals, no offense evryone else, OK?
I am a practicing male **** and love every minute of it, especially since I sufferred a massive heart attack last year and my cardiologist gives me even odds of making it 2 years, probably less so I have to admit that I have become far less discriminating when it comes to strange pussy in terms of safe sex. Now I always have and always will wear a condom for the main event or anal, but I don't like raincoats during BJ's so I almost always get BBBJ's. In fact, if the girl won't provide it, I take a pass on her.
I also love 69 and ferociously eat pussy unprotected as well.
Furthermore, I like to finger and sometimes even lick girls assholes as part of the whole session. I have even engaged in gangbangs with several guys doing one girl consenually.
Never said I was a nice man, just an old ****, I admit.
Now my wife of 25 years and I have been having a pretty bad rough patch over the last couple of years which hasn't exactly done much to slow my mongering down I can tell you, but on my side, I was absolutely faithful to her for 20 years. Yeah I know, you can't be a little bit pregnant, so sue me!
Anyway, a few weeks ago, she informs me that she went to her doctor because she was feeling run down. As part of the tests they ran on her, they tested her for STD's. ( Turns out she's anemic and they're treating it with iron, etc. ) Well, guess what?
She, very pissed off I might add, informs me that the tests showed she has HPV Human Papillary Virus ( or something close to that, I forget exactly what the P stands for ). Anyway, she tells me that it's a virus and once you got it, you got it, period. No cure. From what I gather it's sort of like warts.
Now of course her question for me, and she looks me dead in the eye and tells me Don't Lie! where did she get it? Right, like I'm going to deviate from my normal self and tell the truth? No F'ing way! Now, she told me that the doctor asked if her partner, me, had ever had an STD. Well, she knew that years ago when I was 19, I had gonnorhea so I reminded her of that and even mentioned that I had it twice that year. The doctor did say that it was possible for it to have lingered in my system and manifest itself years later. Naturally, I jumped on that and mentioned that perhaps my heart attack weakened state or somehow with all the needles and people puncturing me had somehow infected me. She bought it well enough to get me off the hook, for now. I mean, let's be honest here, I sat there and it occurred to me that there was no real value in 'fessing up at this point because if I did, I was a dead man, possibly literally and at least figuratively with a strong liklihood of a kick my ass outa the house and divorce pronto happening which, despite my prediliction for pussy, I don't want so I lied...again!
So, my question is...can anybody shed light on my situation? Did I in all liklihood infect her? How? Can it be treated or cured? Is it likely to damage her further? Etc etc. I really will appreciate sold information.
Now if I did infect her then it should serve as a warning to all my good mongering friends and allies out there that there is a real risk and sometimes you get the bear and sometimes it gets you.

ChrisC30
01-06-03, 01:14
Ok, as a "professional", let me say this.

There can be NO way of knowing where she caught it from until you get tested. If you test as clean, either you didn't give it to her, or you are just the luckiest fuck alive.

Your best bet is to march right on down arm in arm with your wife, and get yourself tested, and tested again later if it doesn't show positive. Either you infected her, or she could have infected you. Test yourself.

Professionalism aside, chances are good that she knows or atleast suspects you've been doing something, although she might just be throwing suspicion in all directions trying to find out how she got it.

By lying to her now, you risk it coming down even harder later on, especially if some "health professionals" back you into a corner and press you for details of exactly how many people you've slept with.

Coming clean with her will ease her confusion, help her to get on with things, and will let her know that atleast sometimes you can be honest with her.

If you can't tell her the truth, don't bother standing by her, she needs honest and supportive people right now.

TrashMan
01-06-03, 22:24
Chris,
Thanks for this response. Can you tell me anything about HPV in detail?
Let me say this to you...I have little doubt that I probably gave it to her. I am going to my doctor to be tested tomorrow. Be that as it may, there is no way to prove one way or another who gave it to who and from what I understand, since there is no cure per se, then fessing up would serve no purpose as I see it. I am a lying sack of shit and always have been in business and other areas. I haven't had to ie about faithfulness or lack thereof until very recently. I really don't want my marriage to end and I am 100% certain that it would should I confess to her my hoby activities. She already gets all the property and assets in the event we divorce so money is not a motive for not wanting to tell her. I just see no point in telling her the truth when it won't change anything and will only heap more misery on top, but I do understand and even appreciate your viewpoint. 20/20 hindsight, there's lots of things I would do differently in my life, but it's too late now.
Frankly, I have no intention of telling her I am being tested nor the outcome be it positive or negative unless it shows some other disease and then I would tell her I had been tested and wanted her to know about the other disease.

ChrisC30
01-07-03, 06:17
Trashman -

I have no significant experience with HPV, so cannot tell you anything about it that you couldn't read yourself elsewhere.

I'm glad you're getting tested, but honesty really is best. The choice ultimately is up to you, but I find it best to be honest.

Positive results, I trust, had better make you rethink your safe sex practices in all areas. Condoms will become your best friend, and will keep the girls happier too.

Rubber Nursey
01-07-03, 10:27
Trashman,

Anything you ever wanted to know about HPV... http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/3766/links.html

You will never really know who gave it to who...she may have had it since before you were married, or you may have, or you may have caught it recently from one of the other women you've slept with. HPV is extremely common in our community...many, many people are positive, but don't know. It's also very easily transmitted, because it's one of those infections that condoms don't necessarily protect you from (although condom use would certainly decrease the risk).

There are over 60 types of HPV...some cause visible warts and some don't. I am presuming she doesn't have visible warts, or you probably would have mentioned her undergoing treatment by burning or freezing them off. A few types don't cause visible warts, but are strongly linked to cervical cancer. Your wife will need to have Pap smears much more regularly than she used to, as her chances of dysplasia will be greatly increased. If she smokes as well, her chances of developing cancer are even higher.

I agree with everything ChrisC30 has said. I have to admit, it amazes me that a married man can sleep with countless women as well as his wife...and perform unprotected acts with all of them... and not even think to have an STI test in 5 whole years. I just hope other men learn from your experience and take heed of your warning.

(And yes, I am a fully trained, bona fide sexual health educator...not just the board's resident hooker. :))

PS...HPV is not necessarily a life-long infection. It CAN cure itself after a period of time, but that depends on how fit and healthy you are, how old you are, whether or not you smoke, etc. It's possible for a healthy immune system to eventually fight it off (although, that's not always the case).

TrashMan
01-08-03, 05:33
Chris and RN,
Thank you both for taking the time to answer and for caring, I appreciate it.
To set the record straight, I have never had intercourse with any woman without wearing a condom except for my wife.

I have had oral performed on me both with and without condoms and I have performed oral sex on other women with no protection at all.

Additionally, I have touched and penetrated women with my fingers both vaginally and anally without any protection.

I specifically brought this up and was pretty open about it all in this forum as a warning to other men.

I only hope that I didn't make my wife ill although in my heart of hearts I feel that I probably did and feel very badly about that.

I will tell her of the test results either way. It was good to hear that perhaps her system can fight it off with time.

Thanks again

TrashMan
01-09-03, 05:20
Well I went to the doctor today as I said I would and was tested right then and there for HPV, clap, and chlamydia and the results were negative. He said that he saw absolutely no sign of any kind either gross or microscopic of any infection of any kind. However, they are doing cultures just to be sure and drew blood to run a full battery of STD tests including HIV, Aids, Syphillis etc, the results of which will be available Friday. I will let you guys know.
Jst though you would appreciate the feedback

Rubber Nursey
01-09-03, 06:48
Trashman,

I really respect your decision to share what you're going through with the board. I know there are probably many men here who have been infected/exposed to STIs in some way, but feel too uncomfortable to talk about it. I think that probably gives some people a false sense of security... they read all these stories about men having sex with countless hookers, yet none of them ever seem to catch anything. People rarely seem to give too much thought to their wives' health, either.

Even if your test results all turn out negative (which I sincerely hope they do), your honesty here may just save someone else having to go through what you are experiencing. I hope this honesty extends to your marriage, and that you and your wife can get through this thing together. Best of luck, babe. :)

Dusty Bin
01-09-03, 13:30
Trashman-
maybe a mutual confessional might be in order.
I guess you know she won't have got it from a toilet seat!

Seriously, how do you handle the situation now?
You did not infect her, she has not infected you, so it's a recent thing on her part.
This seems to be something of a 'nightmare scenario'.

I hope that you guys can sort it out.

Rubber Nursey
01-09-03, 14:25
Not necessarily. Either of them could have been infected years ago (Trashman mentioned he had gonorrhoea when he was younger...he could have picked up HPV at the same time), and Trashman's immune system may have been able to fight it off since then...her's may not have. Or it may have been dormant until now. Plus, he said in his first post that his wife "looked him in the eye and asked how she got it". Could have been a cover I guess, but I'm not sure that I would have confronted my husband with a question like that if I thought for a minute that it could have been MY fault.

It's impossible to ever really know who infected who. We already know that Trashman was sleeping around...and for all we know, his wife may have been as well. Or it may have happened long before they were married. But what's done is done. Blaming each other won't do any good...she's still gonna have HPV. All we can do now is wish them luck.

XXL
01-09-03, 17:15
HPV (Human Papilloma Virus)

As far as I know, the jury is still out as to how HPV is transmitted and what it does to people.

HPV may not be a STD, and may even not be disease-causing ("passenger virus" etc.).

TrashMan
01-09-03, 20:39
All,

Clearly this subject has struck a chord within many people and I appreciate all the comments.

As I said earlier, I decided to discuss this matter here for the very reason some have mentioned ...to save others from this ordeal possibly and to enlighten the monger comunity of married men especially of the possible consequences.

Personally, I could give a shit if I get sick and die especially now that I am living on borrowed time anyway but the last thing I would want to do is cause anyone else and especially my wife despite any differences we may have any pain and sufferring.

My doctor told me that HPV ( of which there are some 60 varieties ) is extremely common with 20 - 25 million people in the US alone infected. It often is not necessarily transmitted sexually!

Furthermore, there are many studies which indicate that people like me who have recently had their blood exposed multiple times to a wide variety of people can and do become infected non sexually. Additionally, with my severely weakened constitution and taking a lot of medications does dramatically increase chances of either infection or a virus formerly in remmission for years to flare up. And, as was pointed out here by others here, there is even the possibility that my wife may have been harboring the virus herself for years and it flared up in time of physical or mental stress.

I have no issues whatsover in regards to whether she was "fooling around" and caught it outside the marriage sexually either recently or long ago. To me, that's simply not the point. After 25 years of marriage, I am long past getting freaked out by that possibility and if I were to be, it would make me a huge hypocrite since for several years now I have been "fooling around" myself. As I see it, I have no right to be upset if she did fool around. I wouldn't like it and I wouldn't condone it butI sure as hell wouldn't be pissed off about it.

Let me be clear here. Despite everything I have said and done, I love my wife very much and deeply regret having embarked on the journeys I have been on, but as I have read other places, once you go down that path it's kind of a one way street with very little turning back. I have found myself getting deeper and deeper into darker and darker sides of I will reer to as pornographic based sex.

What am I going to do? Nothing. There is no point in hurting my wife and I don't want to be apart from her for any reason, at least not permanently. Therefore, I see no reason for unilateral or mutual confessions. We will move forward together, period.

Thor
01-09-03, 23:27
i thought i would pass on my recent experience. about 1 month ago, i began to get a burning feeling during urination, that got progressively worse over a few days. fearing the worst, and looking on the internet, i thought for sure that i had picked up either gonorrhea, or chlymidia[sp?]. i also had a discharge following urination.
i went to a public health clinic, where you can get tested and treated free of charge, and more importantly, confidentially. the culture, [CodeWord109] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109) sample, and blood work all came back negatively!
i should add that i was put on a 2x per day dose of doxycyclene pending the test results, for 14 days. my condition improved during the regimen of treatment, but was still present, though at a much reduced level, so i was still concerned.
i then went to a "regular md". what i had was prostatis, whose symptoms mimic std's. it clears up with an anti-bacterial antibiotic.
moral of the story-i was lucky! however, where there is smoke, does not always indicate fire![pun intended].

HeadGames
01-11-03, 02:22
That you got it at the same time you got the other STD years ago is not only a plausible cover story, it may well be what actually happened.

Skinless
01-11-03, 02:48
Thor: headgames seems to be right. I got a dose of clap some time ago, the doctor told me i was cured, I went home to find the same symptoms again, almost the same day: Prostatis: the result of a bad does of the clap. These things work their way up your dick and bite when you least expect it; soemtimes, they have delayed action fuses. Apparently, if you are not careful, they get much worse with age. Moral: get thoroughly checked as there are lots of very nasty bugs to be picked up. No joke I am sure you agree.

Trashman: very interesting and welcome posts. However, a lot can be done with willpower. And sometimes we have to draw a line under things. Sometomes, of course, we have to leave them run their course. Depending on our personal make ups, there is a very dark side to this hobby of ours.

Thor
01-11-03, 03:45
Skinless, you might be right, but the only other time I had anything[that I know of] was some 30 years ago when I got the clap[gonorrhea], in college. Of course that was during the time of "free love". I guess I really must have paid a price, with the delayed fuse. lol
I'm glad you're back to posting on the LOS boards. I want to try to get off the beaten track as well in SE Asia. Have you ever explored rural China away from the coast? thor

HeadGames
01-12-03, 01:00
Originally posted by thor
Skinless, you might be right, but the only other time I had anything[that I know of] was some 30 years ago when I got the clap[gonorrhea], in college.

Right, but you are talking about HPV, a low-level virus that may not show up for years, unlike, say, an infection, which is what gonorrhea is. You could have picked up herpes at the same time and still not know it, unless you actually see a blister and go to the doc and have it checked out.

Or so I have read.

TrashMan
01-15-03, 02:40
Well, I promised those still tuned in an update when I got test results back from the doctor visit last week specifically to test for any STD's. Guess what? Despite being pretty well convinced that I would have a smorgasbord assortment of nasties, my tests all came back 100% negative. The tested both blood and tissue samples for HPV, HIV, Aids, Syphillis, Gonorhea, Chlamydia, and a few others that I don't remember and they ALL came back negative. I spoke to the doctor myself and asked if he was sure. He told me that as a matter of course when he gets a request like mine to test, he doubles up on the tests and orders them from two different labs to be very sure of the results. This guy is thorough!
So, to all of you who cared to wish me well on this, I thank you. To those of you who expressed some interesting thoughts regarding my wife which included, so what do I do if I test negative? And, one who wondered if she was trying to bluff me into admitting forays beyond the home fires.

Like I said earlier, positive or negative results don't matter in terms of me wanting to stay with her for the long run. We've been through 25 years so far.

If she was bluffing me it didn't work, but she's a pretty tough broad and I doubt she fears anything enough to warrant bluffing me, but I'll admit when I tested negative, I did have a moment to wonder. Then again, if I'm out there hobbying, I have no right to ***** if she has been as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.

Thanks again for alll the interesting input from you folks on this.

Ritchie Nolasco
01-22-03, 03:51
Guys, please mention or list down the pros and cons of a condom. Also please mention what the condom can protect you from and what it cannot protect you from.

Thanks guys.

Lamf
01-23-03, 05:02
>Guys, please mention or list down the pros and cons of a condom. Also >please mention what the condom can protect you from and what it cannot >protect you from.

If you're going for FS then you have to use a condom - no ifs, ands, or cons. Latex condoms always say the same thing: "if worn properly, helps protect against HIV and other STDs although nothing will protect you 100%." I'm assuming they mean every STD because I've never heard of any exceptions.

I was told - I think it was in this forum - that you should only buy condoms that state on the box that they help protect against HIV and other STDs. But this is the thing - established brands like Trojan and Durex will specifically state that their brand will help protect against HIV and other STDs. But lesser brands will often only say that latex condoms have been proven to help protect against HIV and other STDs - without stating that their own brand has been specifically proven to do so. I don't know if this makes a difference but I don't like to take the chance. They all cost about the same anyway.

Lew Archer
01-23-03, 06:06
Okay, I'll bite and assume that this is a serious request:

The Pros of wearing a Condom:
- Provides Pregnancy Protection (about 95+% if used properly)
- Provides Protection from STDs (barrier from fluids/viruses)
- May help against Premature Ejaculation (Lessens Sensation)

The Cons of wearing a Condom:
- Lessens sensation (does not feel natural)
- Some people allergic to latex condoms
- May inhibit erection (lessened sensation)
- Do not have the "joy" of raw sex
- Condom can break causing pregnancy or increased risk of contracting disease
- Can ruin the mood or "spontaneity" of sex, stopping during foreplay to put the condom on

For additional information, speak to your physician or look at the insert that comes with every package of condoms.

HeadGames
02-01-03, 05:31
Hey check out the Rio section of the forum, a guy just posted saying he got genital herpes despite wearing condom, though very likely the girl was having an outbreak.

Skinless
02-01-03, 06:10
Hello and welcome to the Gerry Springer and Jphn Skinless show. Here is something from the Rip board.
.................................
http://www.un.org.kh/unaids/faq.html
Interesting thread. Zoomzoom, given her age and her social position and that she has genital herpes, she might be HIV+ as well. What Zoomzoom does will hardly change the overall odds for all of us. One major poster on the Thai boards says he got two separate doses of the clap during his recent TOD there. And that was being careful. The STI rates both among these working women and their clients (us) are much higher than we would imagine by reading of each other's conquests here. We are a very high risk group and the "Safe" Sex and Aids section should be much more active than they are.

Another point: someone posted here about ID and health cards. Is that a joke? They can get as many fake ones of those as they wish. They are fucking us for money and our money spawns many spin of industries, one of which is fake IDs and medical certs. Those women are mostly totally ignorant of safe sex practices (they are largely uneducated and they do include a lot of coke/crack heads)
................................

Has someone you know and love given you herpes, Aids or just plain old clap recently? Want to ***** about it? You know any good joints where HIV+ hos are to be found? Where can they best be avoided? What is the most ridiculous excuse you have heard ? (the Rio one is: dem ain't genital herpes sores, dem is only teenage pimples on my pussy).

To start it off: I was bb anal fucking a cheap leady here in Tokyo and cumming in her mouth and all over her face. I didn't catch anything but I did later, an awesome dose of the clap in Thailand. One of the reasons for that was all the misinformation ("no risk") on the net.

denringer
02-24-03, 07:54
Does anyone know the deal on getting an uncovered BJ? what are the risks to the man? what can I get ? how safe or unsafe is it anyway?

thanks in advance?

Sabio
02-26-03, 23:46
Test Kits and Bare Back sex:

I would like to compare the safety (as far as HIV and herpes-2
are concerned) of covered sex without testing versus uncovered
sex with testing, in view of the newly available test kits for
HIV-1/2 and herpes-2. OraQuick test kit for HIV takes 20 minutes,
and PocKit for Herpes takes 10 minutes. Both are FDA-approved,
both easy to use, and both require only finger prick. Neither
kit is over the counter in the US, but OraQuick is legally
available over the counter in other countries for about $20, and
I suspect that PocKit is, too.

Here are the two scenarios that I am comparing. You take a girl
to your place, then

1. have covered sex with her, without testing.

OR

2. test her first (as you had told her you would), then have
uncovered sex with her if the test is negative, otherwise send
her on her way (as you had told her you would).

First, let's consider the accuracy of the tests. Both test kits
are based on antibodies, not viruses. Therefore, they will be
useless during the initial incubation period (about 3 months for
HIV). Other than that, OraQuick will return a negative when she
is infected only once in 250 times, while PocKit will return
a negative when she is infected only once in 12 times.

If you feel that this is not good enough to give scenario 2
an edge over scenario 1, please take into consideration the
following factors:

1. Self selection: A girl who knows or suspects she has an STD
is unlikely to go with you in the first place knowing that you
will test her for that STD.

2. Side benefits: If you say you will test for "HIV and other
STDs" when you negotiate with the girl, you may get the benefit
of self selection with regard to other STDs that the girl knows
or suspects she has.

3. Other protections: A lot of people who have protected sex
still do DFK, BBBJ, and/or DATY. Under scenario 2, these
activities would be somewhat safer than under scenario 1.

4. Correlation: Having one of the two viruses increases the
likelihood of having the other, so the chances that an infected
girl will fail at least one of the two tests are better than what
the above numbers may suggest.

A few miscellaneous points:

1. Other than the side benefits above, I am not addressing the
bacterial infections, serious as they may be; nor HPV, which has
a lot of unknowns; nor hepatitis A/B, for which there are vaccines;
nor herpes-1, which is mostly the all-too-common oral version.
The comparison that I am proposing relates to HIV-1/2 and herpes-2
only.

2. Although not relevant to safety, but important in practical,
moral, and emotional terms, OraQuick will almost never return
a positive for an uninfected person, while PocKit will return
a positive for an uninfected person about once in twelve times.

3. I assume that you know that you are negative for both viruses,
so whether you too get tested in front of her is a practical (and
fairness) question, with a subtle angle of self selection. If you
do a lot of different girls, you can end up with too many holes
in your finger tip by the end of your trip :) .

4. Although not part of the FDA approval, OraQuick can be used
with oral secretions instead of a blood drop. PocKit does not
seem to have that option.

Any answers? comments? corrections? information? experiences?

denringer
03-01-03, 06:11
Sabio,
Thanks for the comprehensive post but I am a little slow. IF a guy is out there getting BBBJ what can he get ? do you reccomend it ?

CBJ is usually such a bummer.

Thanks in advance,

Denringer

AddictedToWomen
03-01-03, 14:08
Originally posted by denringer

CBJ is usually such a bummer.
Usually being the operative word though. Doesn't have to be. My best *ever* was covered. And I'd swear the girl had no idea just how good she was. Lost contact with her though. Damn, damn, damn... :-(

PurpleNGold
03-01-03, 23:10
Originally posted by sabio
Test Kits and Bare Back sex:

I would like to compare the safety (as far as HIV and herpes-2
are concerned) of covered sex without testing versus uncovered
sex with testing, in view of the newly available test kits for
HIV-1/2 and herpes-2. OraQuick test kit for HIV takes 20 minutes,
and PocKit for Herpes takes 10 minutes. Both are FDA-approved,
both easy to use, and both require only finger prick. Neither
kit is over the counter in the US, but OraQuick is legally
available over the counter in other countries for about $20, and
I suspect that PocKit is, too.

Here are the two scenarios that I am comparing. You take a girl
to your place, then

1. have covered sex with her, without testing.

OR

2. test her first (as you had told her you would), then have
uncovered sex with her if the test is negative, otherwise send
her on her way (as you had told her you would).

(SNIP)

Any answers? comments? corrections? information? experiences?

I'd like to point out that you are only considering STD's that the girl may have. What about you? How often do you test yourself? Are you possibly the cause of the girl's becoming infected? I think that both of your scenarios show a disregard for the girl's safety. Come on, she's a human being as well, regardless of her line of work.

Also, unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. Do you really want to have a child with a working pro? Don't be too sure that she would get an abortion.

Sabio
03-01-03, 23:32
denringer and Addicted:

Thank you for your posts.

For a BBBJ, the test kits that I discussed will have no bearing on the risk for bacterial infection, except through the side benefits
point that I mentioned in my post. The main benefit is by avoiding herpes-2 (less commonly found in the mouth than herpes-1).
To my knowledge, HIV infections through BBBJ are unheared of.

One point about recommendations. I cannot, in good conscience, recommend one activity or the other to someone else. The risk-reward
tradeoffs are different for different people.

Sabio
03-01-03, 23:40
purplengold

You may have missed that in my previous post, I said

"I assume that you know that you are negative for both viruses, so whether you too get tested in front of her is a practical (and fairness)
question"

By the way, I am not advocating either scenario. I am just soliciting opinions (one of which is yours). As for pregnancy, it is
certainly a consideration, but I wanted to maintain separation of concerns here. People can then make an informed decision about
what risks they are willing to take.

PurpleNGold
03-02-03, 10:41
Sabio,

My bad, missing that.

As for my opinion, I think I would be too afraid of the unprotected sex. There is that incubation period during which these tests won't come up positive, but during which, I could still catch something. Remember, these girls are probably going through a lot of guys within that time. Who knows what nasty little bug the last customer deposited for me to withdraw.

And, regardless, I just can't seperate that pregnancy concern.

Just my $.02

Sixtynine
03-02-03, 20:31
I don't know, not only is the testing a mood killer because of the anxiety buildup, I can not imagine many girls who are barfined would want to stay and test thinking you were wacko or something. And people complained that having to stop foreplay to put on a condom kills the mood! I would simply say cover your willy and don't be silly. I would rather use the test kit on a girlfriend or someone with whom I am planning on spending several years with and of course, on myself as well. You really have to know the other person more than just intimately to know for sure. The test kits is like playing Russian roulette by opening the gun quickly to see if there are bullets or not. What you do not see could be the other bullets in the chamber. For hedging my risks, I would still go the condom route as the percentages of higher for safety.

As for the BBBJ, it is really only the last 2 minutes that feel the best and only if you can get to cum in her mouth. I find it also takes longer to completion if starting out BBBJ so I prefer to do the deed, withdraw and then finish BBBJ and clean immediately afterwards.

HeadGames
03-02-03, 21:52
If you've had a vasectomy, like me, then pregnancy is not a concern. But otherwise, I agree with you. Before getting cut, I always abhorred the thought that I might make a baby and that child would be growing up somewhere in the world without knowing its daddy.

Sabio
03-02-03, 23:15
Points well taken. Let me mention a few clarifications.

1. I would like to quantify the risks (put numbers on them, even if they were only ballpark numbers) so that the comparison is objective. We are comparing scenarios that carry risks, and if we discuss the downside of either scenario without evaluating the
probability of that downside, either scenario will look awful. For instance, using a condom correctly does not prevent pregnancy, it just reduces the probability of
pregnancy by 10 to 20 times. By the way, if the same numbers hold for infection (this is a BIG if, I do not have data), the numbers for OraQuick and even PocKit start
looking pretty good.

2. I do not wish the discussion to look like we are advocating uncovered sex. There is
overwhelming data establishing that, other things being equal, covered sex is far safer than uncovered sex. You can view the discussion as comparing prescreening with fast test kits versus not doing so. What practice you do after screening is up to you.

3. If you focus on an infection, say HIV, the number we are after is the probability of getting infected in a single encounter. I would say that if this number is one in a million, the vast majority will consider it acceptable. If it is one in ten, the vast majority will consider it unacceptable. This number is affected by the percentage of providers that are infected, the probability of getting infected from a single covered/
uncovered encounter with an infected girl, and the probability that an infected girl will pass your prescreening (if you do the test). If the resulting probability under
a given scenario is within YOUR acceptable range, you are in business.

It will be very helpful if people can post statistics for different covered and uncovered sex activities (hooky said he might do that), as well as statistics of infection among providers in different cities. It would also be great if those who
have first-hand experience with the test kits would share their experiences with us.

PurpleNGold
03-04-03, 05:40
Originally posted by sabio
3. If you focus on an infection, say HIV, the number we are after is the probability of getting infected in a single encounter. I would say that if this number is one in a million, the vast majority will consider it acceptable. If it is one in ten, the vast majority will consider it unacceptable. This number is affected by the percentage of providers that are infected, the probability of getting infected from a single covered/
uncovered encounter with an infected girl, and the probability that an infected girl will pass your prescreening (if you do the test). If the resulting probability under
a given scenario is within YOUR acceptable range, you are in business.

This is basic probability (bayes formula). But, you need to have the individual probabilities first.

BTW, I wouldn't be too sure about the vast majority feeling like 1 in a million is a small enough probablility to play it safe. The chances of winning a typical 65 number lottery are something like 60 mil to 1 (maybe even higher). Still, it's not a 'vast' majority that abstains from buying a ticket every week.

Sabio
03-04-03, 10:36
purplengold

You are right. The probability is straightforward to compute once you have the components. The one in a million is clearly a guess on my part. My reasoning goes as follows. One in a million per encounter means less than 1% probability of infection after 10,000 lifetime encounters with providers, which I would guess covers the vast majority of hobbyists.

Given that the probability of eventually getting cancer / stroke / heart attack / fatal accident
is much higher than 1%, it is arguable that the 1% increment in risk is justified by the "fun."

Of course, this is just an opinion. Whether it is one in a million or one in a billion, what matters is that it is not zero, and the question becomes: does scenario X achieve that risk.

Sabio
03-05-03, 09:51
hooky wrote (in another section):

>hey sabio
>
>still looking for those numbers. it was something i heard on public radio
>i think about 6 months ago. no luck so far finding it on the net.
>obviously any numbers like those are going to be someone's ballpark
>guesstimates, still they were very interesting for me to hear. included
>were giving and receiving oral and all other types of sex for both
>women and men.
>
>hooky

Rubber Nursey
03-07-03, 05:20
Sabio,

I have read stats on HIV transmission, but I can't seem to find what I'm looking for on the net. I can assure you the chances are much greater than one in a million - if the person you are having sex with is positive, the odds for vaginal sex are around one in 1000-10,000 depending on whether you're male or female. But stats will usually only describe what would happen in a 'control group' anyway - for example, where a healthy male has one session of unprotected sex with an infected female. Things don't work like that in real life though.

What if she has her last client's semen inside her, and you have a cut on your penis? What if she wipes you down with alcohol swabs and it causes an irritation? What if she's been using Nonoxynol-9 and has an irritation of her own? What if you or her have another existing STD (which greatly increases your chances of transmission)? What if you have unprotected sex a second time, and your penis has already been rubbed raw the first time?

I think you would be taking a huge risk relying on a DIY testing kit. HIV has a window period of up to 6 months - she may test negative today, but test positive next week. You would also be putting the sex worker's health at risk for the same reason - you could test negative in front of her, but actually have been infected the month before. The only way of being sure that someone doesn't have HIV, is to have them tested and then wait six months - ensuring that she does not have any sort of sexual contact in that time.

As for the HIV tests serving the secondary purpose of scaring girls off if they have other STDs - I do not have any diseases at all, but I would not do your test if you asked me to. It's an invasion of my privacy, it's unecessary and ineffective, and to top it all off - it would leave me with a cut on my finger, which would put me at greater risk of contracting HIV!

PS. Here's a good site for HIV info...
http://www.avert.org/trans.htm

Sabio
03-07-03, 08:40
RN:

Many thanks for your well-informed post. Please understand that I have not reached
a conclusion yet. It would be great if we continued the discussion at the intelligent
level of your post, so that meaningful conclusions can be reached. I will address here
some of the points you raised


>I can assure you the chances are much greater than one in a million


I agree with you. Just to clarify, the one in a million number that I mentioned in my
previous post is only a target, only after either the covering or testing scenario is
adopted, and only describes the probability of getting infected in one encounter in
general, not one encounter with a known HIV+ person.


>if the person you are having sex with is positive, the odds for vaginal sex are around
>one in 1000-10,000 depending on whether you're male or female.


This is consistent with the numbers I could find so far.


>What if she has her last client's semen inside her, and you have a cut on your penis?
>What if she wipes you down with alcohol swabs and it causes an irritation? What if
>she's been using Nonoxynol-9 and has an irritation of her own? What if you or her have
>another existing STD (which greatly increases your chances of transmission)? What if
>you have unprotected sex a second time, and your penis has already been rubbed raw the
>first time?


Indeed, a lot of factors affect the probability of transmission. The final numbers are
meant to incorporate the different factors according to their likelihood. If you know
a risk factor is present (say you have another STD), your numbers will be worse. If you
know a risk factor is absent (say you do not have another STD), your numbers will be
better. By the way, circumcision, among all things, is reported to reduce the
probability of female-to-male transmission significantly.


>I think you would be taking a huge risk relying on a DIY testing kit. HIV has
>a window period of up to 6 months - she may test negative today, but test positive
>next week.


This is the most important point in my opinion. Indeed, without it, the 250-to-one
performance of OraQuick would be decisive. The question is what is the percentage of
infected providers that are in the so-called seronegative window: have the virus but
still not enough antibodies. If this is 5%, then we are comparing having covered sex
with 20 infected providers, versus having uncovered sex with one infected provider.
By the way, I looked into the seronegative window a bit. According to what I read, the
time it takes antibodies to develop to a detectable level is less than one month for
most people, and it is rare to take more than three months. This does not contradict
that for some it may take 6 months. What matters is the PROBABILITY that this is the
case, since this is what will affect the ultimate probability. If someone has reliable
data on this, please post them, and do correct me if I am wrong.


>You would also be putting the sex worker's health at risk for the same reason - you
>could test negative in front of her, but actually have been infected the month before.


Not at all. As I said in my original post, I assume the hobbyist knows that he is not
infected (to moral certainty, say through DNA testing).


>As for the HIV tests serving the secondary purpose of scaring girls off if they have
>other STDs - I do not have any diseases at all, but I would not do your test if you
>asked me to. It's an invasion of my privacy,


I can perfectly understand your position. This is a sensitive point, so please bear
with me here. I will take No for an answer. I plan to explain the health purpose of this
exercise to the provider. I may even offer to compensate her for her trouble. Given
that, I feel it is OK to ask, pretty much like it is OK to ask for specific services.
If an unifected provider refuses as a matter of principle, I will just miss out on her
and try someone else. The bottom line is that, if I am convinced of the health benefit
(and I am not convinced yet), I will simply do it.


>it's unnecessary and ineffective,


Please allow me to argue that this is yet to be determined.


>and to top it all off - it would leave me with a cut on my finger, which would put me
>at greater risk of contracting HIV!


Point well taken. The finger prick is necessary for PocKit, but OraQuick can be used
with oral secretions.

Again, thank you RN for starting an intelligent discussion.

Sabio
03-09-03, 06:58
NIH study says it is one in seven

The US National Institutes of Health conducted a study on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission during vaginal intercourse. The results showed an 85 percent decrease in risk of HIV transmission among consistent condom users versus non-users.

One in seven is nothing to sneeze at when it comes to saving lives, and it does show that condoms are effective as a public health measure. However, I must say that the number is lower than I thought it would be when it comes to comparing the two scenarios
in my previous posts (covered sex versus fast test kits).

Summary found in:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/hiv/01072004.htm (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/hiv/01072004.htm)

Full report found in:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf )

Sabio
03-12-03, 08:44
Performance numbers for PocKit

This is the herpes 10-minute home test kit that I am exploring for checking providers
for herpes-2 (even when they don't have outbreaks). The performance looks better than
I initially thought:

False Negatives (infected person testing negative): one in 25

False Positives (uninfected person testing positive): one in 33

Seronegative window (time after infection for test to work): 13 days (median)

Notice that we are comparing these numbers to the condom protection (one in 7 for
HIV per my previous post, presumably even worse for herpes since it can be transmitted
through the skin outside the condom).

Details are found in:

http://www.pockit.com/pockitpro/herpes_prod_pubs.htm (http://www.pockit.com/pockitpro/herpes_prod_pubs.htm)

Although this is PocKit's web site, the numbers come from quoted studies that are
published in the open research literature.

Prokofiev
03-13-03, 22:35
Condoms are 85% effective? I'm willing to bet 99%+ for latex condoms provided they don't break. If used correctly and with a little caution condoms break maybe 1 in 100? So the 85% seems bogus to me and probably covers people who don't know how to use condoms as well as people who SAY they always use them but mean that they usually use them.

Meanwhile, good luck on having the women allow your medical testing. Not too likely . . .

Sabio
03-13-03, 23:56
Originally posted by Prokofiev
Condoms are 85% effective? I am willing to bet 99%+

The 85% is not my number. The US Congress commissioned the NIH to determine what
that number is, and NIH had a panel of experts consider a multitude of scientific studies
and concluded that it is 85% (see the links below). This was a surprise for me too, but, with all due respect, I would take a conclusion by the NIH to be more credible than a bet
by you (I really don't mean any offense here, I am just stating a fact).

As for practical issues (acceptance by girls or lack thereof, what to do in case of a positive, etc.), I am not addressing them yet since they would be irrelevant if the
safety of the testing scenario is not up to par. I don't know yet if it is up to par.
This is what I have been trying to gather credible information on.

Let me address the 85% from a public health point of view. Even if it were only 50%, it would make sense for health officials to advocate condoms in strong terms. A person who catches HIV not only does a great harm to him/herself, but also poses a great risk to others, and eventually costs society enormous medical expenses. If the percentage of HIV cases can be cut even by a mere half using a simple, economic, and universally
recognized tool such as condoms, this would be rightfully advocated by any responsible public health entity.

However, for an individual, the 85% is indeed psychologically discouraging in two ways. It makes you feel uneasy even when you use condoms, and it may affect your resolve to use them (knowing that the HIV risk of one bareback encounter is like the risk of seven
covered encounters). Like it or not, it is 85%. I prefer to deal with reality and plan accordingly, rather than ignore the facts and have a false sense of safety.
This is why I am trying to objectively compare the covering and testing scenarios.

Finally, for someone who has as much fun using condoms as not using them, this is a no brainer. Use condoms. If you think testing adds to the safety enough to justify the hassle, use testing on top of it. If not, forget about testing. However, if you do not
have as much fun using condoms, then it makes sense to look into alternatives. If the safety of the alternative is up to par, take it. If it is not, you need to put up with
condoms. Just think of how many posters admitted going bareback in the heat of the moment every now and then. If testing was done (which happens BEFORE the heat of the moment), these very high risk situations would not have arisen in the first place.

Rubber Nursey
03-14-03, 11:09
Re: condom breakage.
A few months ago, I estimated that I've had sex with over 4000 men. Add the repeat customers, etc and...well, lord knows how many times I've had sex! As I've said on this board before, I only had a condom break ONCE in the time that I was working. (And that guy was particularly large).

The risks of a condom breaking with a sex worker are much lower than with 'regular' girls. (There is actually a study that proved this...Perkins, I think?) You can't help but get good at putting one on, when you're doing it so many times a day! Also sex workers (here at least) use condoms of different sizes to ensure a better fit, and they use lube - which is something that 'regular' couples rarely use.

Prokofiev
03-15-03, 03:08
That NIH study was a study of other studies from around the world. Not only does it include breakage but undoubtedly some lying as well. How can you possibly make sure that the participants always used condoms? Never were IV drug users? Can't. These are usually interview studies where you ask questions but can never be sure of the truth. Couldn't even confirm that condoms had any effect on other STD's. Not enough reliable data. Since HIV transmission is almost completely blood and semen related, how well does latex protect against viral infections passing thru the membrane? Close to 100%. A broken rubber? 0%. Pulling a soft dick out and making a mess? A problem.
Plain old lying? The biggest problem of all . . .

-P

Joe Zop
03-15-03, 03:28
I confess I've also always been curious on the whole condom breakage thing. I've never had one break on me, so maybe guys could pipe up here -- how common is it, really?

Prokofiev
03-15-03, 06:26
Yes, I've had them break at least 5 or 6 times out of perhaps 500. And during critical times of the month . . . but I've always dodged that bullet. But never with a pro where we are both very careful. The problem is that you can lose the slack at the tip , especially with an undersized condom. Then if you thrust too hard and deep, looking for more pressure /tightness you can shread the rubber. You can usually feel it . . . not the actual breakage but a pleasant warm/wet feeling (!) Each time I was thinking, "Man this feels good tonight!" without thinking why that might be so.
Of course a couple of drinks can cloud the mind.

And this has never happened in missionary or woman on top position. Only when I'm entering from the side or some strange angle.

RN: 4000 Huh. Are you bragging or complaining? I don't think I'll ever reach that level (a new woman each day for 11 years . . .) but I'm sure some of these guys have you beat (but NOT if they are 29!). . .

And do you use lube INSIDE the condom as well? Or only outside? I read a tip somewhere that lube inside is very pleasurable. AND IT IS. If the condom is large enough you can slide in and out of it a little and it has a different feeling. But I don't do that often . . . maybe I should.

Dickhead
03-15-03, 07:00
Zero breakages here. Seldom use lube although sometimes on the inside. BUT you gotta throw 'em out if they've been in the sun/glove compartment/wallet/whatever too long AND I don't buy "off brands." Oh, and also I always bring American condoms when travelling to Third World countries. I am down on my country at the moment but we do lead the world in two things for sure: condoms and toilet paper. That is good since Bush can both suck my dick AND kiss my ass.

Skinless
03-15-03, 07:28
Dickhead, waving your flag instead of your dick. Japanese condoms are the worlds best (small is beautiful). And Skinless is the best brand (though I do like to go skinless) Superior technology. We don't have a dickhead brand. Japanese toilet paper is also the best. When I got bj'ed here on the street, the lady used a tissue to wipe me and the condom (Japanese) up. Japanese manners are best. But Thai hos give the best lays.

Also, anyone putitng lube into a tube ain't thiking of safe sex. They are thinking with their dickhead.

Dickhead
03-15-03, 07:48
Sorry man, you may be right. I should say the US toilet paper and condoms are the best I have found SO FAR in 30 countries NOT including Japan (where I have not been). But in my defense, quality equals value divided by price, a ratio, and may I ask how much toilet paper costs in Japan? And I have heard many complaints about Japanese condoms from others (mainly that they are too small but maybe that is not a problem for you? :)).

Plus lube in a tube is fine if it is water based lube and not petroleum based lube (avoid Vaseline, cooking oil especially directly out of the deep fryer - ouch!, 10W-40, etc). I like it on the inside of the condom when using unlubricated condoms for blow jobs, but now I have mostly switched to flavored condoms for covered blow jobs.

Skinless
03-15-03, 08:10
Dickhead: you seem to be well informed for a Dickhead. Toilet paper here is very expensive (maybe we should go like India and use our left hand instead). At the last oil crisis, the price of toilet paper shot up. Japanese people, though afraid of the coming war, still cannot afford to shit themselves as the paper is going up very quickly in price.
There is no joke like an old joke. Yes, Japanese condoms tend to be small but good things do come in small packages. I certianly like to come in small packages for example.

So you go around comparing toilet paper in all the countries you visit. Sounds interesting. If you get a bj, you should get a bj, not a flavored piece of rubber. Plus your lady friend can get diseases from rubbers in the mouth. I prefer skinless.

Sabio
03-15-03, 08:19
Effectiveness of condoms

Just to be sure that there is no confusion here, the 85% figure is the effectiveness of
condoms in preventing HIV transmission compared to bareback, not the probability that the condom won't break.

IMHO, assuming that NIH did not take into consideration the obvious factors that one could
think of is amateurish. Also, the fact that they considered the data insufficient to infer the effectiveness numbers for other STDs adds to their credibility. NIH is a research entity that bases its conclusions on hard data and scientific methods, not on anecdotes and wishful thinking.

The bottom line is that each reader can draw their own conclusions. I, and the other posters, are providing information and references that people can look at and evaluate.

Dick Johnson
03-15-03, 09:20
Japan certainly has the most expensive condoms that I know of, US$30,40,even $50- dollars for a box of ten condoms. (skinless, okamoto, etc brands are huge.) The top end condoms are expensive largely because, instead of a straight cylinder, they are shaped like, sorry DH, no pun intended, a Dickhead.
===o instead of ===>

D J

Sabio
03-15-03, 11:53
A picture is worth a 1000 words

Here is a picture of the OraQuick 20-minute test kit. Some love it :) , some hate it :mad: . If you are just joining us, start with the February 26 post.

http://www.abbottdiagnostics.com/systems_tests/images/oraquick_item.jpg

nai
03-15-03, 14:48
in my survey group of 3 tries of japanese contoured condoms - 3 of 3 broke. and they ARE too small.

Monkeyboi
03-15-03, 15:29
Originally posted by Prokofiev
Condoms are 85% effective? I'm willing to bet 99%+ for latex condoms provided they don't break. If used correctly and with a little caution condoms break maybe 1 in 100? So the 85% seems bogus to me and probably covers people who don't know how to use condoms as well as people who SAY they always use them but mean that they usually use them.

Meanwhile, good luck on having the women allow your medical testing. Not too likely . . .

The NIH report did not say condoms are 85% effective. It said condoms are 85% more effective than not using anything at all. Hence, you're not going to get fucked up 1 out of every 7 times you poke an infected worker. Rather, you're 7 times better off using a condom than you would be had you not used one.

The report stated .9/ 100 person years as the infection rate for people using condoms, and 6.4/100 person years for people having unprotected sex with an infected person. So if you assume 1% of the general population has HIV, then the rate for HIV transmission with a random person would be .9/10000 person years and 6.4/10000 person years. I dont know what the report meant by a person year.

Monkeyboi
03-15-03, 15:41
Originally posted by nai
in my survey group of 3 tries of japanese contoured condoms - 3 of 3 broke. and they ARE too small.

think of condoms as spandexes. if you put a small spandex over a huge body, it rips when the huge body moves. if the spandex fits properly, it wont rip.

so of course the japanese condoms are going to break if you have a big dick. Use bigger japanese condoms, i'm pretty sure they have larger ones for those well endowed japanese. Just dont over estimate your size like most guys. You dont want baggy fit condoms.

Skinless
03-15-03, 15:43
Monkeyman: iintersting but maybe not quite right. What your figures mean is that .9/1000 you are in the ballpark or bedpark to be hit with a HIV bug. But the the HIV bug is anti social. It hits say only once every 100 times; therefore your 1000 has to be multiplied by 100 (assuming 100 to be right). Now what this actually means is if you are a good boy, if you are not into fist fucking, poppers, jacking up on smack in shooting galleries, you are probably pretty safe. Chlamydia etc are much more social and the 100 would probably have to be replaced by 8 or 9.

Thanks anyway for taking the pressure off Japanese condoms. Okamoto incidentally is the world's biggest condom company. The main thing is to have an unbroken skin and to kep the top covered.

On another topic: am I the only guy on the planet who does not like having my balls chewed? Women seem to think my balls are chewing gum and it always hurts me. Is there something (else) wrong with me?

Thor
03-15-03, 17:02
I've never had a rubber break in 25 years. Had a few come off, but only when I was pulling out after the fact.
Skinless, I agree. I'm not into the nut swallowing or chewing either. Having them licked however, is fun!

Dickhead
03-15-03, 18:04
Originally posted by skinless
Dickhead: you seem to be well informed for a Dickhead. Toilet paper here is very expensive (maybe we should go like India and use our left hand instead).

The majority of India is Hindu, not Muslim. Those parts use "traditional Hindu cleansing" with leaves and twigs. They do not use their left hand.

I don't like having my balls chewed either. Just suck my dick and stay away from my balls.

Sabio
03-15-03, 20:50
Originaly posted by monkeyboi
I dont know what the report meant by a person year.Instead of measuring the risk per encounter, some studies measure the risk per (total number of encounters a typical person in the study has in a year).


Originally posted by skinless
What your figures mean is that .9/1000 you are in the ballpark or bedpark to be hit with a HIV bug.

ETC.


No. They mean to become INFECTED with HIV, not just "hit." Read the report.

Sabio
03-16-03, 22:26
Someone who actually used the fast test kits :) . This is abridged from a post on another board:

I read about portable HIV testing, and called Abbott in Thailand and
Vietnam (see below). I was directed to a medical supplier which turned out to be a large drug store and got a box of 100. Put on a drop of blood, drop of reagent, than drop of cleaner and if the + sign turns red its positive.

Just ask if they want a free test most seem happy to have it. I have not run into a positive. If I do, I have already decided that I would take the person for a confirmation test. Confirmation testing is available all over Thailand cost about $20.

Thailand
Abbott Laboratories Limited
9th Floor, Nai Lert Tower
2/4 Wireless Road
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Telephone: 66-2267-9060

Vietnam
Abbott Laboratories, S.A.
48, Truong Son Street
Tan Binh District
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Telephone: 84-8-844-8985

Rubber Nursey
03-17-03, 18:13
Originally posted by Prokofiev
And do you use lube INSIDE the condom as well? Or only outside? I read a tip somewhere that lube inside is very pleasurable. AND IT IS. If the condom is large enough you can slide in and out of it a little and it has a different feeling. But I don't do that often . . . maybe I should.

Yep...I wrote that on this board some time ago as well. You just put a tiny drop of lube into the tip of the condom before you roll it on - although you have to be careful that you don't go overboard, or the condom will slip off. My clients always said it felt good.

There is a brand of condoms here called "Ansell Extra Pleasure". They have a straight shaft - slightly tighter than regular condoms - and a large 'bulb' shape on the end. (Much more pronounced than the 'flared' condoms, which get gradually larger towards the tip). The baggy bit at the end acts as a foreskin, by rubbing back and forth over the head of the penis during sex. Add a bit of lube inside these condoms, and apparently it's just about as good as the real thing. The tighter shaft makes sure the condom doesn't slip. I don't know about availability overseas, but I'm sure there would be something similar.

And no, I was neither bragging, nor complaining. I was...errr....confessing. LOL

Dick Johnson
03-18-03, 11:47
RN that's a great idea!! I've never heard of that one. There's a brand called Inspiral here in U.S. that has a spiral shaped front that supposedly provides friction and some users on another board have reported liking it. Didn't work for me the one time I tried it.

skinless, I also hate it on the few occasions women did that ball chewing/sucking. Licking is fine.

Monkeyboi and nai, I think some of the Japanese condoms break not because of size, but because of thiness and sensitivity. The Japanese are almost obsessive of thiness of condoms. The expensive condoms will say '0.2 microns(or whatever) thickness'. The more expensive, the thinner. Up to US$50 for ten. Also they use non traditional materials like so called 'sheerlon' etc instead of latex. A regular condom can stretch to fit a watermelon, or haven't you filled condoms with water, like for parties and stuff? I doubt anyone's dick is as big as a watermelon. It's the friction that breaks the condom. Anyone who says that his dick's size broke a condom.. well, it's not his dick that's too big, but his head.

Sabio
03-18-03, 12:03
3-minute home test kit for HIV

The Canadian company MedMira received preliminary FDA approval, and is about to receive final approval, for a new easy-to-use HIV-1 test kit called MedMira Reveal that gives results within 3 minutes (compared to OraQuick's 20 minutes). The company's previous fast HIV-1/2 test kit MiraWell has been available in Europe for years.

Reveal is of particular interest to the idea of prescreening providers, not only because it is much faster, but also because it seems to have its eye on the do-it-yourself market. From the web page (http://www.ahdnet.net/products.asp#5) of the US distributor:

"The Reveal test is soon to be the only FDA approved rapid diagnostic test for detection of HIV in serum/plasma that can give results in 3 minutes. With distribution contracts in place, this rapid test kit will be used by hospitals and health care facilities, and will soon be sold to the general public."

Dick Johnson
03-18-03, 12:40
Let's hope the dummies at FDA don't take their sweet time on this.

wrist
03-19-03, 07:52
Which one of the following would provide the greatest amount of safety along with highest chance of approval from a provider;

1) With the man lying on his back, start with a piece of Saran wrap large enough to cover from the lower abdomen to the top of the knees. Cut a small hole and slide 3/4 of the way down shaft. Apply condom so that there is 1/4 overlap at the base. The woman could then provide service in whatever female superior position she preferred.

2) Heat bathroom up to temperature needed for comfort while completely lathered-up. Couple could then have full body contact while maintaining a soap barrier between them.

Would either or both methods provide complete protection from all types of STI's? If not, please list the ones that might still be a problem and why. Any other techniques or modifications would be appreciated.

TIA ... wrist

Sabio
03-19-03, 21:30
spit or stick?

The reference below confirms that OraQuick works with either saliva or finger stick. I contacted the manufacturer to ask about this. Since they applied for FDA approval for finger stick only, they cannot market it in the US for use with saliva.

The following reference explains the background and catalogs different HIV fast test kits. Only OraQuick has FDA approval, and MedMira Reveal is on its way.

http://www.medadvocates.org/diagnostics/cdc/rapidtest.html (http://www.medadvocates.org/diagnostics/cdc/rapidtest.html)

Quite a comprehensive reference, albeit a bit old (the year 2000 is now old :) ).

Sabio
03-19-03, 21:40
Prices for PocKit

Here is an e-mail response from a small US distributor of PocKit (the herpes 10-minute test kit). It's about $20 per kit, but I suspect one can get a better price from other outlets.


Thank you for your interest in the POCkit HSV-2 Rapid Test. First of all, you will
have to name a physician, medical professional, medical institution, clinic, or
anywhere with similar for which to address the shipment to.

The tests are sold in towers containing 5 kits. The cost is $97.50 per tower plus
$15 S&H within the continental United States. Please return the number of towers you
will request, your address and country, and we can give you a purchase and shipping
estimate.

Thank you again.

GettingTang
03-22-03, 09:46
I have one quick rather simple questions.

Upon reading numerous posts in this forum, if I were to believe you all, I would come to the conclusion that aids is virtually impossible to catch. My questions is simply this. Then why or how are so many fricken people catching this virus? Now you must remember it is a VIRUS! Viruses, in general, are fair to quite easily passed from one person to another. Why does over half the continent of Africa have aids, why does 32% of Asia have aids, why do males in America under the age of 25 today have a 36% chance of contracting aids in their lifetime? People get real, it's easy to catch! It's a fricken virus, yes you can get it from a BBBJ, male to female sex or from eating out a pussy! Get real, already! Most HIV positive people these days, do not engage in anal sex, do not use IV drugs,
Best estimates place 65-85% of all new HIV cases were contracted from prostitutes, world wide. A west pack tour coming back from Thailand usually has 8% of it's crew test positive for HIV in the coming months.
TANG!

Joe Zop
03-22-03, 16:22
Bullshit.

That's a whole lot of scare tactic stats which contradict information that is simply everywhere, and which you just throw out as if it actually means something. Please cite where your information comes from, as some of your numbers are clearly baloney and don't agree with known and reliable sources.

Half of the continent of Africa does not have HIV/AIDS, for example, (29 million estimated cases, 800 million people -- you do the math) and your numbers on Asia are also ridiculously off (7 million estimated infected, population base of multiple billions.) UNAIDS/WHO say that Cambodia has the highest infection rate on the continent, and that's 2.6%. Sex workers there are the worst, and they're at a 40% infection rate. The rest of Asia is generally far lower in all aspects. Thailand's overall percentage of infected population in 1999 was 1.2%, and things are supposed to have improved since then due to aggressive condom education. It's very well documented that Thailand has had major success in reducing the HIV/AIDS rate since 1993 through aggressive education and condom distribution campaign. Non-brothel sex workers there are infected at vastly lower rates, and most tourists are not using brothels in Thailand.

As to why people catch it, well, people fuck a lot, and plenty of people still don't use condoms, particularly in third world areas, where the cost of condoms makes it virtually impossible. There's obviously a cumulative effect to exposure, in that most of the statistics quoted here regarding transmission look at individual encounters. There's also a big difference between theoretical risk and documented risk.

The CDC says that, yes, AIDS can be transmitted via oral sex, but even in its "definitive" study about this it says it's impossible to rule out that the examples cited came from other sexual practices, and in fact its primary findings were about giving blowjobs, not receiving. Its fact sheet on eating pussy says, "The risk of HIV transmission during cunnilingus is extremely low compared to vaginal and anal sex. However, there have been a few cases of HIV transmission most likely resulting from oral-vaginal sex." Hardly definitive, and hardly something to send anyone into a panic. HIV is not known to be transmitted through saliva, so transmission via oral sex has to be direct contact with a mouth sore or wound. There are NO clearly documented cases of someone getting infected from receiving a blowjob -- if you have evidence otherwise, please point me to it.

Just because something is a virus doesn't mean it's out there infecting you every time the wind blows. AIDS has been described as a "tremendously inefficient disease" in terms of its transmission. Obviously, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be very worried about it, since it can be a death sentence, but that also doesn't mean people should run around screaming that the sky is falling.

Thor
03-22-03, 16:48
Joe-you're right on point, as there is no way that Tang can corroborate his outlandish claims with any sort of factual documentation.

In fact, because his assertions are so off the wall, he is actually performing a disservice to this board, if his intent is to encourage people to practice safe sex, as people will ignore the underlying message due to the high BS quotient. thor

Sabio
03-26-03, 07:33
Originally posted by gettingtang
Upon reading numerous posts in this forum, if I were to believe you all, I would come to the conclusion that aids is virtually impossible to catch. My questions is simply this. Then why or how are so many fricken people catching this virus?

The probability for a man to catch HIV from a single covered vaginal encounter with an infected woman is estimated to range from one in several thousand to one in tens of thousands. It is seven times worse if the encounter is bareback, and about ten times worse for a woman. There are billions of people on this planet having sex, and tens of millions of already infected people. That's why "so many" are catching the virus.


Why does over half the continent of Africa have aids, why does 32% of Asia have aids, why do males in America under the age of 25 today have a 36% chance of contracting aids in their lifetime?

I'll be happy to provide references for the numbers that I mentioned. Could you kindly provide references for your numbers so that readers can independently verify the information?


It's a fricken virus, yes you can get it from a BBBJ, male to female sex or from eating out a pussy!

Yes, and you can also get hit by lightning. What matters is the PROBABILITY. That's what determines the risk-reward tradeoff.


Best estimates place 65-85% of all new HIV cases were contracted from prostitutes, world wide. A west pack tour coming back from Thailand usually has 8% of it's crew test positive for HIV in the coming months.

Again, could you please provide the references? Thank you.

Sixtynine
03-27-03, 13:07
I guess the scariest number of all is 1, as probability does not matter if it would directly affect you. Rather than probabilities, we should be exercising more caution. Maybe I am just anal (no, not that way!), but I ask all my girls to shower, not just splash some water on her pubic hairs, before and after- even if we do it again afterwards. I guess this is a custom I picked up in Asia and have not found as common elsewhere.

Secondly, I like any other man with a pair of genitals attached enjoy BBBJ when possible. However, I limit my time my finishing with the BBBJ when pleasure is most heigthened. I think I got sick once from one girl who sucked me so hard for 20 minutes, my member had turned pink and red from the fricition from being inside her mouth so long. Just a UTI but scared the shit out of me nonetheless. So after finishing with a BBBJ, I proceed to go clean up immediately and drink lots of fluids. It feels so good to [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) just after sex as this too reduces the chances of catching something.

Lastly, there are some activities which do no seem to be mentioned here which although I do not participate in or seek, others are putting themselves in a higher risk category. Anything anal for me is just not really right. I even wash my own ass after a girl rims me but when one girl asked me to rim her, I almost burst out laughing. No way I am going in there even when I introduce the finger, I make sure to have alcohol wipes or soap nearby to clean up. I suppose it is not so much getting AIDS that worries me in that zone, it is something like hepatitis which is more common and easier to catch and which is transmitted through fecal matter. The AIDS virus does not live long outside of the human body but I always make sure the condom is still on right before I cum. Great sensation too pulling it right before you cum and right at that moment slowing putting it it again. Or even better, cumming all over her tits!

Dickhead
03-27-03, 18:48
Originally posted by hysteromania

Lastly, there are some activities which do no seem to be mentioned here which although I do not participate in or seek, others are putting themselves in a higher risk category. Anything anal for me is just not really right. I even wash my own ass after a girl rims me but when one girl asked me to rim her, I almost burst out laughing. No way I am going in there even when I introduce the finger, I make sure to have alcohol wipes or soap nearby to clean up. I suppose it is not so much getting AIDS that worries me in that zone, it is something like hepatitis which is more common and easier to catch and which is transmitted through fecal matter.

Also there is the fact that it smells like shit.

Sabio
03-29-03, 10:27
From a post by Zidaho in another section:

Information found on this WSG site regarding the herpes test kit, "PocKit" was GREAT! However, my initial investigation and contact with the company Diagnology indicates I must find a local physician to order the kits for me. The OraQuick for HIV testing can be ordered in 25 lots directly off their web site: www.orasure.com in that quantity they are $300. or $12.00 per kit.

Sabio
03-30-03, 12:07
And the winner is ......

I have been researching the subject of testing versus covering in order to quantify the risks involved and have a fair comparison between the two scenarios (see my February 26 post for background), and it's time to post the results. I will start with the conclusions, and then give the details and references. Although the conclusions are similar for HIV and herpes, the reasons are quite different.

Bottom Line

1. As far as catching HIV is concerned, an uncovered vaginal encounter with a provider who tested negative for HIV using OraQuick or MedMira Reveal is about three times safer than a covered vaginal encounter with a provider who was not tested.

2. As far as catching herpes-2 is concerned, an uncovered vaginal encounter with a provider who tested negative for herpes-2 using PocKit is about three times safer than a covered vaginal encounter with a provider who was not tested.

Main Components

The components of the calculation are:

1. The probability that an infected provider tests negative. These are one in 250 for OraQuick (http://www.aegis.com/news/bw/2002/BW021104.html) and one in 25 for PocKit (http://www.pockit.com/pockitpro/herpes_prod_pubs.htm).

2. The relative risk of uncovered versus covered vaginal encounter, which is a factor of seven for HIV transmission (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/hiv/01072004.htm).

3. The "seronegative window" risk, that is the initial period after infection when a person can infect others with the virus, but still tests negative for antibodies (see thebody website (http://www.thebody.com)). The risk is affected by the length of the window, and the infectiousness during it.

It is component 3 that took most of the research. The details follow for herpes-2 (straightforward) and HIV (quite involved).

Herpes

Most of the risk in the testing scenario comes from the one in 25 sensitivity of PocKit. The seronegative window for herpes-2 is 13 days (median) which is very short compared to the professional lifetime of a provider, not to mention that it is the period of the first (and worst) outbreak that should be quite notable hence avoidable. Therefore, the added risk of the seronegative window is very small, and the "three times" estimate comes from comparing 7 for condoms to 25 for PocKit, rounding in favor of condoms.

HIV

This is where it gets a bit complicated. The one in 250 sensitivity of OraQuick is so large that the risk mostly comes from the seronegative window. First, I thought the only factor of that risk was the length of the seronegative window compared to the professional lifetime of an HIV+ provider (since this would give us an estimate of the percentage of HIV+ providers in their seronegative window). That would have made test kits MUCH safer than condoms.

Then came bad news for test kits: Providers are more infectious during the seronegative window because of the high viral load (http://www.aegis.com/pubs/aidsline/2000/jun/A0061887.html). The viral load (http://www.natip.org/viralload.html) measures how much HIV there is in the blood stream. The higher the viral load, the more infectious the person is, which makes sense since there are more viruses to go around. It also makes sense that the viral load gets high during the seronegative window since the antibodies that fight the virus have not formed yet, hence the virus is having a field day multiplying.

Then came some good news for test kits. The profile of the viral load (http://www.thebody.com/cfa/rita_winter02/images/figure1.gif) is high only for a short period, and the resulting infectiousness increases slowly with the viral load (http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2002/18mar02/18male.html). By calculating the average infectiousness from the profile, we get that the seronegative window is equivalent to 80 days of post-window infectiousness. If the professional lifetime of an HIV+ provider is about 5 years, we arrive at the "three times" estimate, again rounding in favor of condoms. If it is more than 5 years, the edge of the test kits will be higher.

Like the herpes initial outbreak (but definitely less dramatic), there are symptoms for the seronegative window in the case of HIV. This is something that I did not know before as I assumed HIV to be totally asymptomatic until full blown AIDS develops. The most common symptoms are fever and rash (http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/recent/primary/053102e.html) which should be somewhat notable. Although this factor magnifies the edge of test kits, it was not considered in the "three times" estimate as it is a bit subjective.

One more factor that favors test kits but was not considered in the calculation is that higher viral loads seem to trigger antibody formation (http://www.thebody.com********AIDS/Labs/Archive/Science/Q145347.html), hence shortening the dangerous "blind" period for the test kits.

Final Word

I tried my best to seek out credible references, and to make an unbiased calculation. I would welcome any remarks that criticize or support my references or reasoning, any relevant information that can be verified, or any questions about any aspect of this post. If I made an error, please tell me. My real goal here is to know if I should go the testing route. For that, my vital interest lies in what is the correct conclusion, not who arrived at it.

Prokofiev
03-30-03, 18:05
The flaws I see are:

1) The odds of catching HIV or Herpes with a provider using a condom is an unknown number. It is almost totally dependent upon the rubber breaking - which is an individual statistic for each man - what type or size of condom, how you use it, your sex technique, etc.

2) Whether your provider is going to allow you to administer medical tests in a bar or hotel room.

3) Whether your provider is going to let you have sex with her without a condom no matter WHAT tests you give her and yourself. How does she know that you don't have HIV? How does she know if your testing is real or bogus? Maybe in Thailand but most professional professionals I know in the US or Mexico want it covered. No exceptions. And by using these ladies, your odds of having an HIV infected provider is very low. When you seek out providers who are willing to have unprotected sex, you are already in a high risk pool

Good Luck . . .

Joe Zop
03-30-03, 18:11
Personally, I find the bottom line to be this -- three times safer is still substantially lower than the degree of safety you get using condoms. You want to combine testing with condoms and you're safer still, but one missed per 25 or one missed per 250 is still pretty lousy when you consider the potential consequences.

Prokofiev
03-30-03, 18:40
There are reputable houses - like Nevada or La Yegua in Mexico, where the girls are checked by a doctor each week and given an HIV test. They also require that the women visually check each client and always use a condom and lubricant. The odds of catching something under these circumstances are pretty low - even if the rubber should break.

But when you search out women who ALLOW unprotected sex and then HAVE unprotected sex with them, you are swimming in the deep end of the pool. The "window" of exposure scares me along with the 1 in 25 odds of a false negative. And certainly the odds of having some other infection not tested for is much higher. To me, finding providers who have little chance of HIV is more important. Supposedly, the HIV rate in Nevada brothels is near zero and much lower than the population at large.

Combining the test and a condom would be as safe as possible, but kind of defeats the whole idea . . .

Sabio
03-31-03, 00:00
Prokofiev:

Thank you for your response. Here are my comments on some of the points you raised.


>The odds of catching HIV or Herpes with a provider using a condom is an unknown number.

I am only using the relative odds (with versus without condoms), and that is a known number (see the NIH report).


>It is almost totally dependent upon the rubber breaking

No, it is not. Read the report. If you believe that your assessment of the effectiveness of condoms is better than that of the NIH study, I cannot help you.


>But when you search out women who ALLOW unprotected sex and then HAVE unprotected
>sex with them, you are swimming in the deep end of the pool.

You got it backwards. I am not searching out women who allow unprotected sex. I am searching out women who allow being tested. I am not having unprotected sex. I am having uncovered sex with a provider who tested negative, which is safer than having covered sex with a provider who was not tested.


>The "window" of exposure scares me along with the 1 in 25 odds of a false negative.

I wanted to be objective rather than emotional, and that's why I took the trouble to calculate the bottom line. The bottom line is that, all things considered, the testing scenario is safer than the covering scenario.


>2) Whether your provider is going to allow you to administer medical tests in a bar
>or hotel room.
>3) Whether your provider is going to let you have sex with her without a condom no
>matter WHAT tests you give her and yourself. How does she know that you don't have
>HIV? How does she know if your testing is real or bogus? Maybe in Thailand but most
>professional professionals I know in the US or Mexico want it covered.

These practical points are well taken, and need to be addressed. I believe it can be done, but this is just an opinion, not a data-based calculation like the safety issue. For example, I am fairly confident that a provider will accept testing and uncovered sex after you "hit it off" with her the first time (covered), and propose to stay with her for a few days. Anyway, I will be happy to discuss it and will benefit from the different opinions.


>Combining the test and a condom would be as safe as possible, but kind of defeats the whole idea

This is definitely a valid approach, but I agree with you that it is not likely to happen.

Sabio
03-31-03, 00:15
Originally posted by joe_zop
Personally, I find the bottom line to be this -- three times safer is still substantially lower than the degree of safety you get using condoms.
You want to combine testing with condoms and you're safer still, but one missed per 25 or one missed per 250 is still pretty lousy when you consider the potential consequences.

Just to be sure there is no confusion, it is three times safer than using condoms.

Again, I agree that if you consider the down side, you will be scared even if the odds are small. Objectively, this would be an argument for abstinence :( . Condoms are certainly safer than bareback (when no testing is involved), but one needs to realize that it is only seven times safer. That is, seven covered encounters carry the risk of one uncovered encounter.

If you are not going to use testing, by all means use condoms without fail. What I am reporting is that testing and bareback is safer than no testing and condom.

Joe Zop
03-31-03, 02:16
Ah, sorry, I misread the statement as being uncovered. Mea culpa on that; needed to drink my coffee before wading in. Have done so now :)

That said, months back I read the entire NIH review cited in your link, and I disagree that it conclusively shows a one in seven rate. In fact, this review stated that the vast majority of the studies out there were so poorly constructed that it was basically impossible to draw any decent scientific conclusions on condom effectiveness, period. It should be kept in mind that this was not a study, but a two-day literature review panel attempting to answer the following: “What is the scientific evidence of the effectiveness of latex male condom-use to prevent STD transmission?” What the panel actually concluded is that most studies looking at the issue were not designed using the optimal method to assess that effectiveness. That 85% decrease rate was simply not a hard and fast number, most certainly not one that was consistent across studies, so drawing probability conclusions from it is rather dicey.

To quote from the study’s executive summary, “The Panel stressed that the absence of definitive conclusions reflected inadequacies of the evidence available and should not be interpreted as proof of the adequacy or inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk of STDs other than HIV transmission in men and women and gonorrhea in men. To definitively answer the remaining questions about condom effectiveness for preventing STD infections will require well-designed and ethically sound clinical studies.” So basically, the report concludes that it can conclude only that condoms reduce rates for HIV and gonorrhea, but not much beyond that. Again (as I actually had an argument on this point with someone, which is why I say it) this doesn't say that condoms don't do wonderful things with STDs -- only that the evidence is insufficient to make scientifically airtight statements in most cases.

This report also very specificially (and unusually, for such a report, which I think makes it significant) cautions that it is not intended to make public health policy recommendations regarding the role of condoms in HIV/STD prevention policy and programs, which is rather similar to what you're trying to use it to do here.

In addition, it should be noted that these newly available tests only claim to screen for HIV-1, not HIV-2, so effectiveness of the test will vary somewhat depending on who you're dealing with and where they're from. Admittedly, HIV-2 is less prevalent in most parts of the world and appears to be less easily transmitted, but that's not necessarily much comfort if you guess wrong. I sure wouldn't want to be use your approach in Africa, that's for sure.

So I find it inaccurate to say, "seven covered encounters carry the risk of one uncovered encounter" particularly if you're coming up with a number that looks at transmission rates between those who are regular condom users and those who are not. It's very much worth noting that a number of the cited studies hedged their bets on those who were infected who said they were regular condom users, in some cases openly doubting the veracity of the reporting.

Don't misunderstand me -- I am a full believer that screening tests work -- I worked in a Red Cross blood bank when HIV testing was first introduced, and part of my job was tracking blood and reasons why donors were screened out. There's no question such testing essentially cleaned up the blood supply. But I'm not particularly comfortable with making a risk analysis that depends on a figure come up with using "meta-analysis of several studies," comparing it to concrete FDA and industry test results, and then using that as a recommendation for behavior. And that's not even dealing with the fact, as has been brought up here repeatedly, that there are practical problems with your scenario in real life.

Sabio
03-31-03, 03:53
joe_zop

Many thanks for your detailed and informed post (coffee seems to work well for you :) ). I am glad you took the time to go through the NIH report, and I will comment on your observations.



That said, months back I read the entire NIH review cited in your link, and I disagree that it conclusively shows a one in seven rate. In fact, this review stated that the vast majority of the studies out there were so poorly constructed that it was basically impossible to draw any decent scientific conclusions on condom effectiveness, period.
The inconclusive part was about STDs other than HIV (as you correctly state later in your post). The 85% figure about HIV is conclusive.



That 85% decrease rate was simply not a hard and fast number, most certainly not one that was consistent across studies, so drawing probability conclusions from it is rather dicey.
What the panel did is use established statistical methods to fit the studies it found reliable. If the fit was not good enough, it was considered inconclusive (which happened in the case of other STDs). The fit to the 85% figure was statistically reliable in the case of HIV, as the panel concluded.



To quote from the study's executive summary, 'The Panel stressed that the absence of definitive conclusions reflected inadequacies of the evidence available and should not be interpreted as proof of the adequacy or inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk of STDs other than HIV transmission in men and women and gonorrhea in men. To definitively answer the remaining questions about condom effectiveness for preventing STD infections will require well-designed and ethically sound clinical studies.' So basically, the report concludes that it can conclude only that condoms reduce rates for HIV and gonorrhea, but not much beyond that.
Hear, hear. HIV is the main infection that test kits are concerned with, and as you say, the study does establish the 85% figure in the case of HIV. I extrapolated to herpes-2 (generously, I think, as herpes-2 can be transmitted through areas outside the condom), but I am all ears if people have other information.



Again (as I actually had an argument on this point with someone, which is why I say it) this doesn't say that condoms don't do wonderful things with STDs -- only that the evidence is insufficient to make scientifically airtight statements in most cases.
My point. So the 85% for HIV, which the panel found the evidence sufficient for, is by implication a "scientifically airtight statement"



This report also very specificially (and unusually, for such a report, which I think makes it significant) cautions that it is not intended to make public health policy recommendations regarding the role of condoms in HIV/STD prevention policy and programs, which is rather similar to what you're trying to use it to do here.
Me? public health policy? I'll take this as a compliment :) . Let me repeat what I said in a previous post about the public health issue. It is completely legitimate, even prudent, for public health officials to advocate condoms vigorously even if their effectiveness was just 50%, let alone 85%. We are talking about saving lives, dangers to sociaty, and enormous expenses, using a cheap, simple, and universally recognized tool. If I were a health official, I would not advocate test kits since I need to worry about teen agers who can barely afford a pizza and about morons who may try to fit the test kit on their penis. I wouldn't even publicize the 85% number in order not to discourage the use of condoms. Well, I am not a public health official and I am addressing a constituency of sophisticated traveled adults like yourself who can read the literature and draw their own conclusions.



In addition, it should be noted that these newly available tests only claim to screen for HIV-1, not HIV-2, so effectiveness of the test will vary somewhat depending on who you're dealing with and where they're from. Admittedly, HIV-2 is less prevalent in most parts of the world and appears to be less easily transmitted, but that's not necessarily much comfort if you guess wrong. I sure wouldn't want to be use your approach in Africa, that's for sure.

The companies sought FDA approval for HIV-1 only (marketing in the US where HIV-2 is very rare), but MedMira Reveal (the 3-minute kit) works for both HIV-1 and HIV-2 (see the comprehensive reference on test kits in a previous post of mine).



Don't misunderstand me -- I am a full believer that screening tests work -- I worked in a Red Cross blood bank when HIV testing was first introduced, and part of my job was tracking blood and reasons why donors were screened out. There's no question such testing essentially cleaned up the blood supply. But I'm not particularly comfortable with making a risk analysis that depends on a figure come up with using "meta-analysis of several studies," comparing it to concrete FDA and industry test results, and then using that as a recommendation for behavior.
I am glad you have a technically related background. Let me just mention that (1) I trust NIH more than the industry as NIH is a research entity with no biased agenda, and (2) I am not making any recommendation for behaviour. Just giving information and opinions that adults can read and draw their own conclusions.



And that's not even dealing with the fact, as has been brought up here repeatedly, that there are practical problems with your scenario in real life.
I keep saying this is a valid point worth discussing, but it is a separate issue from the safety. I plan to get into it after the current discussion winds down.

Thanks again, joe_zip.

Joe Zop
03-31-03, 05:14
Ok, since we've gotten into this I went back and actually read the NIH thing again to refresh my memory. I pulled the quotes I used previously from an old newspaper letter exchange I had with someone who was using the study to argue against teaching condom usage in schools -- a position that this particular report has often been used to bolster, unfortunately, which is why I read it in the first place. (I don't do the editorial letter thing a lot, but the letter writer pissed me off with her right-wing christian crapola, and it bugged me to have a corrective study used to distort things.) Hence my comment about the public policy health issue, as the truth is that what we're talking about here -- with adults who presumably can read and follow research, but who also, based on postings in various places on this board, are sometimes folks who go bareback without any testing at all -- is a policy of how to approach mongering with some degree of safety and confidence. So this really rather is a policy discussion in a public place, even if it's not public policy.

I see that the 85% figure is in the review, but I also see that the NIH simply evaluated the meta-analysis done by someone else as opposed to did one themselves, so they do not really provide that 85% reduction rate -- they simply find it's the level they can confidently say is credible, and let's keep in mind that the purpose of this literature review was to basically throw cold water on everything except what could be said for certain (and to call for more studies!) So they've taken the worst-case number here. According to Planned Parenthood's summation of the same study (Davis & Weller, 1999, which I've tried without success to track down on the net) the "meta-analysis of 25 studies on HIV transmission and condoms found that efficacy rates ranged from 87 percent to 96 percent against HIV infection." That's a little different story, isn't it? It's why I say it's not a hard and fast number -- it's scientifically airtight to the degree that the literature review can say for certainty that it's at least that rate -- it may actually be higher. So the disparity between testing and condoms may well not be what you're describing.

The other problem I see is this -- even if you're testing someone for HIV and Herpes, you're not testing them for a host of other bad things such as gonorrhea, syph, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, any of the various strains of hepatitis, etc. So if you're going bareback with the idea that after you've tested them and they've come up negative you're reasonably safe you're still rolling the dice, since many of these other goodies are far more prevalent than HIV. The test you screen for assures you that they don't have that particular gremlin -- not others. And as the NIH report makes clear, just because there's not sufficient scientific evidence to be conclusive doesn't mean that condoms don't work on these other things. My take is still that a condom is the best overall protection for a monger, even if the test is moderately more effective on a single disease or two. (Not to mention the condom is far cheaper and more likely to reassure your temporary partner.)

Sabio
03-31-03, 05:52
joe_zop

Points well taken. I am not treating the one in seven as cast in stone, but it is the best scientific estimate available. That's what we have. The conclusion is that test kits are three times safer than condoms. That's our best objective estimate at this point.

Anything that goes against the status quo causes discomfort, and test kits are no exception. Most people have come to terms with condoms, and they don't like to rock the boat. Some may decide that even with the x3 benefit of test kits, they will continue to use condoms only. Some may choose otherwise.

As for the other diseases, please notice that a lot of people on this board do DFK, BBBJ, and/or DATY quite regularly. For them, the reward justifies the risk, whether this is wise or not. Their highest priority is not to catch HIV or herpes, and it is not the end of the world if they risk catching another curable disease.

Having said that, there is a correlation between having different STDs, and one may argue that a provider who passes both your tests is safer for other STDs than an untested provider. One may even argue that the self selection will make providers who know or suspect they have STDs not agree to testing, hence get eliminated. All of this is argumentative. The only fact is the safety level of test kits versus condoms for HIV and herpes. What to do with that is for individuals to decide.

Prokofiev
03-31-03, 06:15
Sabio,
I too reread that study or rather the review of other studies and it repeatedly warns about inadequate data and methods. The Davis and Weller part specificly states that all 12 studies they used had replied upon self-reporting of condom usage and breakage. It would be difficult to do otherwise. And the 85% is a summary estimate. The part that addresses the risk of condom breakage and leakage shows very low numbers for risk of infection due to breakage namely 1 in 167 for breakage infection, 1 in 125,000 for non-visable defect leakage and 1 in 250,000 for non-leakage transfer of a virus. The conclusion: mechanically, condoms are VERY effective in stopping a virus. So how do you get from 99.4% to 85% effective? Not addressed. But logically not all of the "always use" were always using. Not surprising. Also drug use or other transmission routes are possible. Your statement that the NIH would have thought about and addressed these concerns is only partly true. They mentioned many possible flaws -especially self-reporting, but didn't design any of the studies. But to the panel the summary of those studies that were usable proved that condoms are at least 85% effective against HIV and they consider it a positive outcome. With better designed studies the number could be much higher but not any lower.

And the overall theme of the report is that condom usage is highly effective and that even these flawed studies made this apparent. I think these scientists would be horrified to learn that you are taking the 85% effective conclusion as a hard and negative fact and then using it to calculate that non-condom usage with a prostitute could be justified.

Yet I don't really argue with your conclusion that testing a woman, staying with her exclusively for a period of time, first with condom usage and later without is dangerous compared to the alternatives, especially if the time period is more than a couple of days. Just not very practical . . .

PRBuck
03-31-03, 06:22
I'm a newbie, be gentle. Where can I get OraQuick?

Sabio
03-31-03, 07:31
Prokofiev

Thank you for your commentary.


But to the panel the summary of those studies that were usable proved that condoms are at least 85% effective against HIV and they consider it a positive outcome. With better designed studies the number could be much higher but not any lower.

Please point out the page of the report in which the qualification at least is mentioned in connection with the 85% figure, and also the part where it mentions that with better designed studies the number could be much higher but not any lower.


I think these scientists would be horrified to learn that you are taking the 85% effective conclusion as a hard and negative fact and then using it to calculate that non-condom usage with a prostitute could be justified.

I never said that. Non-condom use with a prostitute is one of the riskiest behaviours a person can engage in. The subject of my posts is testing. Imagine if I told you for a fact that the provider you are about to sleep with has AIDS. Would you sleep with her, even with a condom, or would you try someone else? That's what testing allows you to do.

Prokofiev
03-31-03, 08:17
Here's where "at least" enters.
You have a group of "always use" that are self-reporting, a flaw pointed out repeatedly in the study. They can't report more than 100%. But it could be 95%, 90% or less, depending on the participants. Therefore the 85% effective number which is predicated on 100% usage would be higher depending on the true number. And since the real number of infections are very small - just a couple of HIV infections that resulted from lying could make a huge difference. But it can't be lower since virtually every posibility(lying, slipage, breakage, drugs, homosexual activity) would make it higher. I suppose the "never use" group could also be lying and actually use condoms, making their infection rate artifically low . . . but I doubt it.

You also ignore the calculated .006 infection risk number (=1 in 167) for condom usage including breakage (which they say can be as high as 3.2%). How do you go from 1 in 167 to 1 in 7 actual? What is the mechanism? Do you really believe that 7 covered exposures (especially without breaking) equals 1 unprotected exposure? When they calculate exposure without breakage is more like 1 in 125,000? That's crazy.

You seem to want that 1 in 7 number so badly that you refuse to consider any other possibility. But I'm NOT against testing. That is clearly a good idea . . .

Sabio
03-31-03, 09:02
Prokofiev

Well, we are about to fill a page of the safe sex section in 24 hours, which should be a record for this section of the board :)

I perfectly understand that the one in seven figure puzzles you. It puzzled me, too. I bought into it because of the credibility of the NIH. If there was an agenda to be had, it would be in favor of getting a bigger number than seven to support public health policy.

I found numbers that are even less than seven on the web, but I didn't "want" them as they came from non-credible sources (for example religious organizations with an obvious agenda).

Perhaps it will make things a bit easier to swallow if you look at the pregnancy numbers. If condoms are used consistently and correctly, they reduce pregnancy by a factor between one in ten and one in twenty. Do you agree that a sperm is bigger than a virus? What is the "mechanism" for it to reach the egg if condoms are as astronomically effective as you project them to be?

Sixtynine
03-31-03, 12:40
Here is another test, more like a lottery but isn´t odds for you anyway? Nice read on stats and info as well, that is if you "get lucky". Would be interesting to see others results.

http://www.ministryofsound.com/music/radio/
Click on the scratch off lottery banner on the left.

Sixtynine
03-31-03, 12:43
Oops, here is a better link for the STD lottery. Seems that the other link always comes up with chlamydia and a 1:1 chance would be too odd and scary!

http://www.playingsafely.co.uk/games/sex_lottery.asp

Sabio
03-31-03, 15:17
hysteromania

I'll take your posts as a break to loosen up in the middle of a serious discussion :) .

Of course, all of us are playing the STD lottery except those who choose abstinence. What makes one game of lottery safer than another is ........, you guessed it, the PROBABILITY of catching a particular STD.

Whether you will be lucky or unlucky is beyond your control. What is under your control is choosing a method that has better odds. That's why I am comparing the odds of different methods.

Good luck ;) .

Joe Zop
03-31-03, 16:51
"I perfectly understand that the one in seven figure puzzles you. It puzzled me, too. I bought into it because of the credibility of the NIH. If there was an agenda to be had, it would be in favor of getting a bigger number than seven to support public health policy."

But that is definitely not the purpose of a literature review, and your conclusions on the possible agenda are incorrect. The purpose of a literature review is to look at the bulk of research and determine what it proves can be said for certain and what cannot -- and in this case, that 85% figure is a least common denominator. If there was a real underlying agenda, it was to call for more research, and expressly not to support policy, there being a difference between scientific knowledge and policy-making. Again, this is why the report specifically cautions against using its conclusions for policy purposes.

As far as your statement on pregnancy rates, I'd point to the same review, which references studies on condom usage among married couples, and concludes that education on proper usage decreases breakage, slippage, and pregnancy. The review cites laboratory tests, and very specifically states that condom usage with no breakage and no slippage results in 0.0ml semen exposure and 0.0 relative risk of semen exposure (and by extrapolation, pregnancy) versus non-use. (So your statement on virus size versus sperm size is irrelevant.) Even the numbers with a visible hole are very, very low, with relative risk versus non-use at 0.000008. It references what it considers rigorous studies which show 1.1% and 3% pregnancy rates -- lower than you cite -- among couples using condoms consistently and correctly.

Should I conclude, as someone who's never had a condom break or slip off, that it's safer for me than most people? The answer is probably yes. RN reported here that she never had a condom break in her thousands of encounters, which would mean according to the NIH conclusions she was consistently safe. The real trick here might be learning to use condoms properly, as opposed to learning to use the kits.

This points to a very key important difference -- efficacy versus effectiveness. Again, from the panel, "It is important to distinguish between condom's efficacy, which is the protection that users would receive under ideal conditions, and their effectiveness, which is the protection they provide under actual conditions of use."

The number we're arguing over is a deriviative measurement of effectiveness, not efficacy, whereas the numbers you're using from the testing kit studies are efficacy numbers. The truth is that you're presenting a comparison of apples and oranges -- there are no effectiveness numbers for the kits as there are as of yet no studies of their use by real people in the field, and the reality is that they will no doubt be improperly manipulated by folks who use them, just as condoms are. Thus the true effectiveness rate of the kits will no doubt be much lower than the efficacy rate, (as it can't be higher) just as is the case with condoms.

By the way -- I want to make sure that I say thank you, Sabio, for bringing a high-level concrete discussion here. Regardless of what anyone concludes, this is definitely both stimulating and informative, and my comments, even when I'm disagreeing, should also be taken as full of admiration for the work and thinking you've done.

Sabio
03-31-03, 22:25
joe_zop

Thank you for your post and your kind words. Please take my remarks in the same spirit. Even when we disagree, I benefit from your point of view.


"I perfectly understand that the one in seven figure puzzles you. It puzzled me, too. I bought into it because of the credibility of the NIH. If there was an agenda to be had, it would be in favor of getting a bigger number than seven to support public health policy."

But that is definitely not the purpose of a literature review, and your conclusions on the possible agenda are incorrect. The purpose of a literature review is to look at the bulk of research and determine what can it proves be said for certain and what cannot
I said "if there was an agenda to be had" as I don't believe NIH has an agenda other than a research agenda, namely reaching objective conclusions by applying scientific methods to hard data. So I guess we are in agreement here.


It references what it considers rigorous studies which show 1.1% and 3% pregnancy rates -- lower than you cite -- among couples using condoms consistently and correctly.
Here, we are not in agreement. Both the 3% and the 1.1% are the pregnancy rates (in one year for the former study, and in six months for the latter). You need to compare these numbers to the pregnancy rates of non-users over the same period to get the effectiveness of condoms that I referred to.


The number we're arguing over is a deriviative measurement of effectiveness, not efficacy, whereas the numbers you're using from the testing kit studies are efficacy numbers. The truth is that you're presenting a comparison of apples and oranges -- there are no effectiveness numbers for the kits as there are as of yet no studies of their use by real people in the field
No, I am not talking about efficacy (ideal case) of test kits. I am talking about the actual field test numbers for the kits. These field tests were indeed conducted as part of the FDA approval process, and that's how the sensitivity of the test was calculated.

Hooky
04-01-03, 03:20
sabio

thanks for finding those numbers that i was unable to track down. your efforts are very much appreciated.

just as a caveat, however. alot of the numbers are actually estimates which may or may not be borne out/corroborated on further investigation. nevertheless, i was very interested when i heard them the first time just to get a rough idea of what was what.

so the caveat is that the estimates are guesses based on current information, and the degree to which they are innacurate may be greatly magnified or minimized when subjecting them to mathematical manipulation. trying to get a clear estimate of some other issue by extrapolating those numbers can lead to further innacuracies

so thanks again for finding that, i will go read it. hope this contributes a little.

hooky

ps i will also look more closely at your analysis, i admit i knd of fell off this thread for a while and just skimmed it when i came back. also, i agree with joe z in his concluding remarks.

Sabio
04-01-03, 09:10
My farewell post

The forum moderator suspended my instant posting privileges and sent me an e-mail that included the following

I reviewed all your forum posts and observed that the only subject that you seem to post about is the testing kits. Given the number of posts on essentially the same subject, I am suspicious of your agenda
I am stunned that an intellectual discussion at the core of the subject of safe sex draws this reaction from him. However, I do not wish to invest my time and effort in a place where I am not welcome, so this will be my last post. I guess the quality of Nibu's posts warrant creating new sections for him, and the quality of my posts are not up to par. Well, it is the moderator's prerogative to make that judgment.

Just because he raised the "agenda" issue, let me tell you that I am not affiliated with NIH or any test kit company, nor do I have financial interest in any of them (nor have I shorted any condom companies :) ). What started me on this was a post in another section

Originally posted by Z Ice Blue on February 18, 2003
Hi
Can someone point me to a good quick HIV test kit, and where to buy it from, and its cost. Also, is it multi use, or for single use only.
thanks
z
My immediate impression was "Dream on." I just did not think that such kits (legitimate ones) existed. Then came a response

Originally posted by Surfer on February 23, 2003
Z Ice Blue-What you need is Ora-Kwik, a one time test kit taking 20 minutes and with an accuracy rate of over 99%. JUST approved for use in US but you can't just buy them here. I have a few extra I'd sell you (I bought them in Thailand where they can be legally bought over the counter). I'll be in Rio on Wednesday the 26th so drop me an email (XTNsurfer@hotmail.com) if interested.
and I started looking into it. The result was my posts that started on February 26.

I would like to thank all the board members who took part in this stimulating discussion, including AddictedToWomen, denringer, Dick Johnson, Freeler, hooky, HeadGames, hysteromania, joe_zop, lookr, monkeyboi, joe_zop, PRBuck, purplengold, Prokofiev, RN, and skinless. Please forgive me if I inadvertently offended anyone during a heated discussion. The essence of a lively discussion is disagreement. As the saying goes "where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much."

Good bye.

Don't be so dramatic. Your membership will remain active, and you are encourage to continue making contributions in the future.

Jackson

Joe Zop
04-03-03, 19:03
Jackson, I think you're following US foreign policy a bit too closely. Do we now root out suspected abusers before they actually do something? Sabio's always been on-topic, intelligent, polite and non-abusive, and it's not like he's going everywhere on the site yapping about testing kits or that he's been talking about only one manufacturer in some sort of veiled sales pitch.

Sabio, regardless of this move, which I absolutely don't understand, I hope you'll keep posting.

Vagringo
04-14-03, 21:40
HERPES SCAIREd ok on my last trip i fucked 25 women safe sex and 1 from iquittos peru with out i did all the tests and alot of research herpes is not just the blisters on the dick you can have it by skin contact and never have the blisterS there is a test that you get it is a blood test that tests for both herpes 1 and 2 they say 40 mil people have herpes in the states or will get it well luckliy i am negative JUST WANTED TO STRESS IF YOU DONT SEE A RED INFLAMED UGLY PIMPLE CRUSTY PUSSY THEY STILL MIGHT HAVE IT AND NOT HAVE SYMPTOMS> justa freindley jab at people like me that think they know it all. like johny carson usta say I DID NOT KNOW THAT

Rodpipe
04-20-03, 08:13
Herpes is easily the most misunderstood std. The rules however are very simple. At age 21 90% of poeple in the U.S have Oral (type 1) herpies. 60% will have one outbreak upon thier initial exposure, and will never have another outbreak. These poeple are non transmitters. The other thirty percent will have intermittent outbreaks where they are able to transmit the disease when they have open sores. If they go down on you with open sores you can become infected with type two, genital herpes. Otherwise if the girl has type 2 she may have sores that she may not be aware of that can infect you. If you have safe sex, and the condom remains intact, there is a very low transmission rate. You probably can't get type one from kissing her either as if you are American, and have dated a bit, your chances of not having it already are very low. Bottom line the herpies virus is low on the scale of worries. Take this scenario for instance. Like her on top? Her Virus loaded vaginal secretions pool in you anus as they mix with her sweat, giving easy access to mucous membranes. Infected!

SeeksGoodTime
05-03-03, 18:13
Thanks for that info on herpes. I just got back from Costa Rica (see report) and had quite q bit of BBBJ. I always wondered what the true risk was if there was no outbreak visible.

Another things that I wondered is why are more women likely to give BBBJ than DFK. Is this more an emotional thing do you believe? Seems like more could be caught from pre-come during BBBJ than saliva exchange.

Sixtynine
05-06-03, 13:45
The disease I am quite worried about is something like Hepatitis B. It is said that the chances of catching it are 100 times more than HIV and that it can stay on the surface of an area for up to 1 month! I can imagine in hot and humid place like SE Asia, these figures are probably even more scary as bacteria thrive in these environments.

My questions though are:
Is it cureable?
Can it be caught more than once?
Is it a terminal illness?
Why are 3 vaccinations necessary- taken first, 1 month later, then 6 months again

http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4115.htm

Joe Zop
05-06-03, 14:21
Hepatitis B isn't "curable" per se -- you don't get it completely out of your system, but if you recover from the infection and are not a chronic infectee then you're no longer a carrier. There are treatments for it and for its physical effects, but not cures. It can definitely be caught more than once, and that's generally where you get more serious health problems.

About 30% of the people who get it show no symptoms. Those who do, however, can definitely have serious problems, including chronic liver disease, which kills 15-25% of chronically infected people. (6% of adults who get it become chronic, so that means about a 1 to 1.5% overall fatality rate for adults.) A quarter of the people who get it become ill with jaundice, about 15% of those requiring hospitalization, and a small percentage do die from that. About 5000 people die from it each year in the U.S. Supposedly, Hep B is responsible for 80% of all liver cancer worldwide.

The reason for the three treatments is to provide maximum protection and duration -- it's cumulative in effectiveness, with three treatments protecting about 90% of people. The first shot provides up to 50% protection, the next up to 80%, and the last up to 100%.

By the way -- Hep B is spread only via blood and body fluids, so though it is robust and can survive once exposed to the air, the transmission that way is more limited. (It can survive a week in dried blood!) It's Hepatitis A that can be spread more easily in food, drink, unclean surfaces, etc.

Track Addict
05-16-03, 05:17
Bottom line the herpies virus is low on the scale of worries. Take this scenario for instance. Like her on top? Her Virus loaded vaginal secretions pool in you anus as they mix with her sweat, giving easy access to mucous membranes. Infected! [/i][/QUOTE]Here's another one. Condom fully engaged, Penis fully inserted>>>going long and deeeeep> a week later with a full outbreak around the base of the shaft and scrotum> no muccous membranes necessary.

Had to explain that one to the "significant other", not fun.

Thought I was having safe sex. If I hadn't a been making her come and scream at that time I didn't even NEED to be going that deep (that's the worst part).

Herpes is a horrible virus, it's painful and disgusting and depressing and it makes me feel guilty and ashamed. Even though it is controllable with Valtrex, I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

Herzeleid
05-26-03, 18:18
Hello.

I was wondering if anyone had heard of any web sites, or had any information regarding the prevalence of HIV/AIDS as relates to prostitution specifically. I have been doing this for a couple of years now, and recently had the frightening experience of a condom breaking. I got tested, and it came up negative, but I know it takes a few months before it shows up on a test. How scared should I be?

Any help would be appreciated.

Phil #1
06-02-03, 16:00
I had intercourse without a rubber last week in Tijuana, Mexico. I didn't mention it over in the Mexico forum, I thought I'd get feedback here first. A girl, 28, from India charged only $60 for the half hour and when I couldn't cum she offered to take the condom off. She asked me if I was clean. I thought to myself a lot of good that will do her if I say yes. I've tested negative for STDs including AIDS. I told her I'm clean of course. And as I took off the rubber I'm thinking my god what if I get vd and how would these forums react if they found out I did this. So I went ahead inside her in missionary, it felt great and I climaxed inside.

She gave me her home phone in Tijuana and later in the Adelita Bar next to the hotel she started talking about her baby girl, having no money, her rent and marriage to someone like me. Well maybe the whole thing was to get me to be a regular customer I can see that. But I don't have the money to pay her rent or even half of it. I won't play the boyfriend after reading the forums here. Anyway was that a stupid thing to do, sex with no condom? I guess so. So far no lesions or sores on the pecker after 7 days.

PhilT

Prokofiev
06-02-03, 19:34
Phil . . .

Do you really need to ask that question? I think you are well aware of the answer . . .

Good Luck, -P

AnExpat
06-08-03, 04:14
Phil...

Did you stop and think....was SHE clean?? I'd worry more about catching STD's like herpes, gonnorea(sp?) and such when not using a condom.

I've read in some places that unless your penis is nicked or cut or is sore, its difficult for you to catch HIV because the virus cannot enter any other way. I've also heard that HIV can enter through the urethra opening but I'm not too sure about this fact, maybe some of the members would care to shed some light on this topic.....

anexpat

Corndog
06-08-03, 14:39
Here is my take on this

Here is my history. I have had a lot of BBBJs from hookers. One time when I lived in LA, I got bitten by a mosquito and came down with inflammation of the brain and thought I was going to die, really. I was munching on a burrito in a outside café and some chick asked me if I saw this guy in a chevy. I said no. she asked if I could drive her to pick up something and she would make if worth my while. So I drove her to her moms house and they talked for a while. She came out pissed and wanted to leave. From what I guess she just got out of institution (really) and also just had a baby. She was telling me that she was bi and was a lesbian hooker. So in the back of a parking lot she tried to give me a BBBJ but couldn’t do it. So she tells me she needs a place to stay and wants to f**k. So we go back to my place. She tells me not to wear a rubber and she doesn’t believe in aids. I figure I am going to die anyways and I did her with out a rubber. A couple weeks later I got better, but that thing about not believing in aids remark bugged me. Now last year I was in Honduras. The damn hookers kept stealing my rubbers. So it was a pain to get one out of my suit case. A couple of times I was really drunk and said WTF and didn’t use one. I have really investigated this, the incidence of female to male infection is fairly low. I think around 4%. So far I have had 4 aids test and all negative over the years. My last one was just a few months ago. The CDC has taken prostitution off the high risk list. They are not seeing the numbers they thought they would. Do I say throw caution to the wind, no. I talked to a aids doctor and he said the chances of you catching it if you have unprotected sex with a person who has aids is around 1 in 300. The only thing I worry about is when I see a hooker with scabs on her face. Could mean she has HPV, basically sexual warts.

McGarah
07-01-03, 05:22
Here is my take on sex with pros. Always wear a rubber, just use a good one. I like Avanti: I think it is the most sensitive (The maufacturer promotes it that way.) It's not latex, but some other man-made material, just more sensitive than latex. Now, I cannot come with a latex rubber on under any circumstances, especially if I've had a few drinks(numbs me.) But, with the Avanti- no problem. Heard that they could tear with violent buttfucking, but who's really going to let you violently fuck their ass? Must have been a gay thing. Nothing personal.

Hanzo
07-11-03, 03:08
I am new to this hobby.

Is eating pussy safe?

Is missionary position safer than cow-girl while in no rubber situation?

Is it ok let the girl sucking your dick without condom?

Thanks a lot

EDITOR's NOTE: Posting of this report was delayed pending revisions for capitalization and punctuation. To avoid future delays, please refrain from using the "chat room" style of writing with no caps or punctuation. Thanks!

Mookman
07-12-03, 13:45
Avanti is polyurathane, for people who are allergic to latex. It's thinner than latex so people say they feel the body heat more through it. It may well enough protect against AIDS and pregnancy but it hasn't been scientifically proven as absolute truth so there is still testing going on.

Here's a quote from the website:
The risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STD's), including AIDS (HIV infection), are not known for this condom. A study is being done.

Also remember not to use a spermicide condom, supposedly spermicide makes latex weaker, ever so slightly but also irritates the skin, where something can enter.

Mool

Sixtynine
07-15-03, 03:05
originally posted by hanzo
i am new to this hobby.

is eating pussy safe?

is missionary position safer than cow-girl while in no rubber situation?

is it ok let the girl sucking your dick without condom?

thanks a lot

editor's note: posting of this report was delayed pending revisions for capitalization and punctuation. to avoid future delays, please refrain from using the "chat room" style of writing with no caps or punctuation. thanks!

welcome hanzo, i am fairly new too (less than 1 year mongering!) but hope i can answer you questions with some knowledge based on my own experience.

eating pussy can be good fun but i have become anal (no, not that way!) about how i proceed before i decide to eat it or not. first when you pull the panties off, visually look around the outside for any abnormal growths like warts or herpes, then i kiss around her inner thighs to get her in the mood as it can tickle but more importantly, any strong odors at this point can be detected.

if things are still okay, i will insert a finger or two and play with her and by this point if all goes well, i dive in!! ;) note: no matter what people tell you, pussy should not smell! later you may get deep inside or get her juices going but that is a different story. secondly, do not brush your teeth right before this. most people's gums bleed after brushing so beware. and lastly, something that i love most about asians, get her to wash it before you dive in. you can do the test of senses before like sight, touch and smell before you taste. why am i so careful? urinary tract infections are cureable and not dangerous but cause discomfort- imagine pissing razor blades! yes, you can get one from just oral sex- either receiving or giving, believe me.

as for getting the bbbj, this feels even better but also carries the risk but it is much more of a risk for her, especially if cim, than it is for you. still you should use caution by washing right after, etc.

now that you have read this far, you can imagine what my position is about no condom. unless you really know her well and have practiced safe sex for months, use a condom! but some people are too intent on stimulating satisfaction before common sense. this being said if you are solely intent on doing this, do the missionary position better and then choose to cum all over her. the more time you are inside of her, the more chances of exchanging bodily fluids. less of risk at least than eating pussy but make sure you wash very well and it is much better if you [CodeWord111] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord111) shortly after as these both reduce the chance of catching something.

don't fall for bullshit lines like she is on the pill, you are her first customer, etc. i have met people in the philippines who have told me stories about [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) charges linked to doing semen tests (your evidence inside her is stronger than fingerprints!) or false pregnancy stories later to get more money out of you. or the worst i heard, someone who screwed a "virgin" turned out to be a girl on the rag who simply bled all over him during the cowgirl position. ugh@!

Prokofiev
07-15-03, 18:00
Hysteromania,

The smell test is of little use in detecting HIV, herpes, hepatitis or most viral infections /STD's. It is more about bacterial or yeast/fungal infections or just plain lack of washing. Smell doesn't necessarily equate with high risk and certainly lack of smell tells you little about a woman's viral load. Also you cannot get a urinary tract infection by eating pussy - although you might transmit one to her or get one from a BBBJ . . . if that is what you meant.
Odds of catching AIDs from oral sex- pretty damn low. Herpes 2 or gonorrhoea from a BBBJ - very possible. Especially when you consider the number of partners that most pro women encounter. While a "normal" woman you date may have had 5-50 partners in a lifetime (typical), a pro will have had 300-5000+ and if you are getting BBBJ and CIM you can bet that the other 1000 or so guys did too. And probably many times during the previous few days or hours . . .

All in all, I find I sleep better at night knowing I used a rubber for CBJ . . . especially if you have a wife or significant partner which whom you have unprotected sex. Yes, many of the STD's are cureable -though not all- but it is hard to explain to her why you gave her the infection, and more importantly is unfair to someone who trusted you sexually.

Holland Report
07-18-03, 17:38
No, I agree. In fact 'safe sex' is really a contradiction in terms. No sex is really safe. You're always at SOME risk, be it increased risk of prostate cancer, herpes, treatable STDs or HIV/AIDS and death! Not trying to be alarmist. Just making a valid point. As with everything else in life, you have to make your own decisions/judgements, in view of your particular life circumstances, as to whether these risks are worth it! For me, I don't think they are. So I just use a rubber for everything and, hopefully, the worst risk I face is some kindof rubber allergy! :-)

Hanzo
07-20-03, 06:15
thank you so much for the invalueable informaion. sound you travel a lot and had lots of taste.


originally posted by hysteromania
welcome hanzo, i am fairly new too (less than 1 year mongering!) but hope i can answer you questions with some knowledge based on my own experience.

eating pussy can be good fun but i have become anal (no, not that way!) about how i proceed before i decide to eat it or not. first when you pull the panties off, visually look around the outside for any abnormal growths like warts or herpes, then i kiss around her inner thighs to get her in the mood as it can tickle but more importantly, any strong odors at this point can be detected.

if things are still okay, i will insert a finger or two and play with her and by this point if all goes well, i dive in!! ;) note: no matter what people tell you, pussy should not smell! later you may get deep inside or get her juices going but that is a different story. secondly, do not brush your teeth right before this. most people's gums bleed after brushing so beware. and lastly, something that i love most about asians, get her to wash it before you dive in. you can do the test of senses before like sight, touch and smell before you taste. why am i so careful? urinary tract infections are cureable and not dangerous but cause discomfort- imagine pissing razor blades! yes, you can get one from just oral sex- either receiving or giving, believe me.

as for getting the bbbj, this feels even better but also carries the risk but it is much more of a risk for her, especially if cim, than it is for you. still you should use caution by washing right after, etc.

now that you have read this far, you can imagine what my position is about no condom. unless you really know her well and have practiced safe sex for months, use a condom! but some people are too intent on stimulating satisfaction before common sense. this being said if you are solely intent on doing this, do the missionary position better and then choose to cum all over her. the more time you are inside of her, the more chances of exchanging bodily fluids. less of risk at least than eating pussy but make sure you wash very well and it is much better if you [CodeWord111] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord111) shortly after as these both reduce the chance of catching something.

don't fall for bullshit lines like she is on the pill, you are her first customer, etc. i have met people in the philippines who have told me stories about [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) charges linked to doing semen tests (your evidence inside her is stronger than fingerprints!) or false pregnancy stories later to get more money out of you. or the worst i heard, someone who screwed a "virgin" turned out to be a girl on the rag who simply bled all over him during the cowgirl position. ugh@!

Sixtynine
07-22-03, 05:48
Never said I had all of the answers and yes, you are right about smell does not equate to STD detection easily. I just see it that if a girl is careless down there, that spells trouble in other areas as these things go together as one complication can increase chances of others. For example, chlymadia and gonorhea can occur.

As for the pros, I guess I still like em young (if I wanted to do 30 year olds, I could be patient and date instead!). But we pay for generally what we can not easily attain otherwise. Just remember that if a girl say has sex on average 10 times a week all year, that is a whopping 520 guys, with multiple sessions likely thus increasing risk. Not trying to scare anyone, but be be careful and remember the six degrees of "penetration" as she probably has done it with someone who has something!

Boxcc
08-15-03, 20:22
What I usually look for when I risk a bbbj is if the girl has a good set of teeth. Now, I know that this is not the end all, beat all test, but if the girl has good oral hygiene, I feel more comfortable with it. If she is a snaggle-tooth, then I won't let her come near my dick! But, if she has a nice clean smile, then I don't worry about a bbbj if I wash it off right after. I always keep some anti-bacterial baby-wipes in the car for this purpose. You can wipe it off on the spot and reduce your risk!

And, if your wife questions why the hell you have baby-wipes in your car, tell her that you go out to eat ocassionally and want to wash your hands off before you eat, without having to use their nasty bathroom.