Safe Sex

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by denringer
[i]
CBJ is usually such a bummer.
[/i][/QUOTE]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... :-(

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sabio
[i]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][/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.