The Truth about AIDS

Actually, RN, considering all the discussion about testing, I also just wanted to point out that people tend to want to use tests in broader ways than they're really designed from a strictly medical perspective. This relates, as well, to Seydlitz's comments about the unreliability of HIV testing -- while it's true that the test often yields false positives, and also that it's possible that some with HIV are not properly identified, a series of tests is the normal way of confirming most medical conditions as opposed to one single one which could be anomalous. Most tests improve in reliability when given more than once or when combined with others that test for the same condition.

And the social agenda (proving people are "safe" or not) does have a tendency to overwhelm and overshadow the medical purpose of the tests. While such data is useful to some extent in looking at overall rates of exposure and infection, and thereby giving a kind of overall risk factor to, say, a region, it becomes more problematic when drawing distinctions within groups or when making blanket statements about the safety of individuals. Take, for example, your complaint that "to say that 'hookers' in general are a high risk factor is unfair." In truth, that's not the case -- precisely when you're talking "in general" and using the broad definition, sex workers generally do have higher infection rates than the general population. (Prostitutes in Nairobi, for example, are generally HIV positive at a rate of close to 50% as opposed to the appallingly high rate of the rest of the country. The infection rate for prostitutes in NYC is far higher than that of the city as a whole.) As you properly point out, this blanket statement doesn't reflect the different striations or types of sex workers, and the truth varies radically depending on where and who we're talking about. Not to mention, of course, that the data is quite often murky and incomplete.

I did understand what you were saying as testing relates to the whole issue of mandatory testing of sex workers, which is a complex and unfortunate issue -- unfortunate in that a well-regulated and well-educated sector could very well keep everyone safer, but education and regulation tend to be at odds in this particular case because of the social stigmas involved. In a perfect place, all sex workers would be tested and would remove themselves from the workplace if they were infected; in real life government demands for such time-outs or removal (as well as being formally identified as a sex worker) generally has the effect of driving those most at risk underground. What's needed, I think, is a mutually trusted intermediary organization that educates, provides tests and medical assistance, but has a buffer between them and governmental registration or control as a way of reducing fear and stigma. (And ideally an additional support structure for integrating and supporting those sex workers who are undergoing treatment and not working.) Most importantly, it also takes an acknowledgement that these sex workers didn't get infected on their own, and that their customers are equally culpable in the equation.

Unfortunately, that latter fact is something that's politically [b]far[/b] more difficult to deal with than just about anything else. Wouldn't it be nice, in the face of continued criminalization of prostitution in various places, if convictions for soliciting or frequenting prostitutes didn't mean going to John school or paying a fine or forfeiting your car, but simply meant you had to get tested for STDs and, if needed, treated? And that was that? (And before people jump on me, I'll note again that I'm firmly and absolutely in favor of decriminilization!) In the long run, that would be far more socially productive. Of course, the odds that this kind of thing would happen in [i]lieu[/i] of other penalties are slim and none -- it's far more likely something like that would be added on as an additional condition, and probably coupled with some form of further social embarrassment, which has the same effect of mandatory testing of sex workers in defeating the purpose.

Joe, (GREAT post by the way!)

[i]Take, for example, your complaint that "to say that 'hookers' in general are a high risk factor is unfair." In truth, that's not the case -- precisely when you're talking "in general" and using the broad definition, sex workers generally do have higher infection rates than the general population.[/i]

I know that in most countries, prostitutes have a higher rate of HIV infection. (And that this is a direct result of social stigma, government/police interference in the sex industry, poverty, lack of health education, no access to safe sex equipment, etc...) I guess I was annoyed with the blanket statements for two reasons.
a) I come from a country where sex workers ARE "cleaner" than the general community (and I guess my own pride just can't let me sit back and read it without commenting! LOL) and,
b) I find the attitudes in here re: hookers versus "normal" girls to be really naive, and in some cases, maybe even dangerous.

Soooo many posts in this and the safe sex section (including all the stuff in the old forum) say things like "I'd only do that with a normal girl, not a hooker" and "barebacking is a death sentence with a hooker...save it for the "amateurs". Everyone is so convinced that hookers are the "vectors of disease" and that so-called normal girls are somehow safer. It has nothing much to do with the number of men a hooker sleeps with, and everything to do with safe sex practices. IMHO a hooker who always insists on using condoms with her 5 clients a day is a lot safer than the "normal" girl who NEVER uses condoms and picks up a different guy every week.

I think this is very much the same argument as the gay man/IV drug user discussion. People can not keep considering it to be simply a "hooker problem"....ANY woman who sleeps with many partners or indulges in unsafe sex is a high risk. To think otherwise is simply lulling yourself into a false sense of security every time you have sex with a "good girl".

[i]What's needed, I think, is a mutually trusted intermediary organization that educates, provides tests and medical assistance, but has a buffer between them and governmental registration or control as a way of reducing fear and stigma. (And ideally an additional support structure for integrating and supporting those sex workers who are undergoing treatment and not working.)[/i]

That is exactly what I do...that is where I work. There is at least one agency in every Australian state that provides these exact services, and they are all Government funded. Every service is provided with complete anonymity, which makes sex workers more than willing to seek us out. We also go to them in their places of work. Most importantly, we do not question about age, drug habits, immigration status, etc...things that will usually force a worker to stay hidden from authorities. It is solely because of these agencies that the Oz sex industry is so "clean" in comparison to most other places in the world. If every other Government had half a brain, they would fund something similar (and if OUR Government had half a brain, they would realise that we do half the work off our own backs because we do not get ENOUGH funding!! LOL) Unfortunately, the welfare of the public is always so much more important to the powers that be than the welfare of the sex workers. I wish they would wake up and realise that by assisting the industry, public health will benefit.

I knew that was Aussie pride (and pride in one's work) I heard crackling in the background! And it's loud, too, and irresistable to tweak. ;)

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the similarity of "gay/druggie" and "hooker" categorizations. Again, it's a way of making it something that happens to others and not you, and it looks at the victims as opposed to the diseases. Safe practice is safe practice, no matter who's doing the practicing.

And I do feel compelled to just briefly comment on your statement "It has nothing much to do with the number of men a hooker sleeps with, and everything to do with safe sex practices." Well, really, it's both. Condoms break, precautions fail, and being in a situation of multiple partners still means a greater general risk. But your point is well taken about overall safety and the tendency of guys to be less careful with "good girls." Personally, I'll find little comfort knowing that the person who ends up being the death of me was an amatuer.

So, is there a civil service exam to get hired in your job? Interesting pictures swirl in my head regarding the questions and necessary demonstrations of expertise involved :)

heh heh i'm a stubborn woman...i can't help it, sorry *grin*

i know it's totally off topic, but i thought i would answer your question re: the sex worker agencies in oz (solely out of pride again of course! lol)

they are based on a "peer education" model, as are most of the drug agencies, hiv support, etc. everything is done with complete confidentiality at the interview...to the extent that i actually did 2 cvs, one with my "regular" qualifications on it (i have studied a few different things) and one with my industry experience on it. the regular cv is held on file with my other employment details, and the industry one is never seen again.

there have been lots of studies recently into the benefits of peer education, especially in the case of the sex industry. ex or current workers can go places that regular health workers just cannot access. also, sex workers tend to see anyone that is not "one of them" as either a prospective rescuer (which they do not want) or a spy. you can see their faces when you first meet them...they ask you a hesitant question on how to do something and when you start with "well, when i was working..." they instantly change demeanor. that simple statement not only puts us on equal footing, but it validates what they do and ultimately who they are.

the other advantage of peer education, is that there is hardly anyone who is as well practiced in the art of condom use as a hooker is! our health authorities (who actually fund us) realise this...oz sex workers' safe sex practices were referred to as "exemplary" in a recent report on hiv. who better to teach sex education?? ;) also, we are a lot more broadminded as far as discussing actual sex acts, which makes communication much easier.

just a little note on hookers being more likely to catch something on the basis of increased exposure...
there's a couple of extra things to consider. one is that the condom breakage rate of (health educated) sex workers is extremely small. they know to use heaps of lubricant which many regular girls don't do; they use different sized condoms to fit different penises, which a lot of regular girls don't even know about, and they also usually will not use a condom provided by the man; they are more aware of tongue rings, fingernails, etc when handling a condom; and most importantly, they do a dc before even starting, while many regular women wouldn't even know what to look for.

the difference with sex workers is fear. they treat every client with suspicion, and therefore take every precaution possible. on the other hand, when most regular women meet someone they are attracted to, they are likely to throw caution to the wind, or be afraid of "offending" their partner with asking questions or looking to closely at his dangly bits! (there is also often the issue of alcohol to increase risks further).

yes, i know this doesn't account for every sex worker, but there are a few other factors to consider rather than just basing it on repeated exposure. and (i hate doing this, it sounds terrible! lol) i worked five days a week, seeing an average of 5 clients a day for (taking into account time off) around 4 years. that's a hell of a lot of exposure. however, and this is the absolute truth, i never caught anything from ony one of them. as i noted in a previous post, the only time i came horribly close to catching something, was a few years before when i was married. because i trusted him...and i certainly never trusted my clients. :)

hey guys....can anyone tell me wat's the risk of getting a BBBJ from porstitutes???......can i get AIDS from that???......plz reply...forgive me for my ignorance....

shakiraa:

we just discussed this very issue in this forum. I would suggest you read the last two or three pages, and you will have a better understanding of the issue.

shakiraa
your chances of getting AIDS from an uncovered blowjob are very very low,,,,nearly 0......but you can get other nasty little sexually transmitted deseases from that blowjob
. Mostly AIDS is transmitted sexually through anal sex. '''Simply put, if you allow a man with AIDS to fuck you in your ass, you are at high risk. Other than that its a difficult virus for a male to get sexually unless he has open sores on his penis. It can be transmitted other ways, but the odds of getting AIDS through any sexual act other than anal are small. In the United States it is mostly transmitted through anal sex or if you share needles to take drugs. In Africa AIDS is much more easily spread because of untreated venereal diseases, cultural practices of genital piercings, the common practice of having anal sex with women to avoid pregnancy and other social issues that are not common in the United States. Some people also sugest that men who are not circumcised may run a higher risk if their hygene is poor(as is common in third world countries), but thats not been proven.

Brett,
Thank you for adding a voice of sanity to the continuing debate over the risks of heterosexually transmitted AIDS. I agree with everything you have written, and I compliment you on the sucinct (sic?) and informative manner in which you have described the actual risks. I have a friend who is a doctor here in Houston - the 4th largest city in the US, with a very large gay, and consequently, HIV-infected population. He has routinely tested patients for HIV infection for the last 15 years, and says that to this day, he has never been wrong when he has predicted a negative result. Not once. If you are not doing receptive anal, and/or sharing needles, your risk of contracting HIV, while existent, is VERY small, particularly in the US. Check out Michael Fumento's "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" for more details.

http://www.cures4aids.com/

Just to muddy the waters a little. I came across an article a few years ago disputing the 'cast iron' connection between HIV and AIDS. Unfortunately I chucked the magazine. Since then I've followed the debate, particularly noting dissenters such as Tabo MBeki (South Africa) and the journalist Bernard Trink (Bangkok Post) who are also unconvinced as to the direct link. If you would care for a more intellectual study on the case. Please look at the following link http://www.nexusmagazine.com/ and scroll down to the story "DOES HIV CAUSE AIDS? Pt.1, Pt.2, Pt.3
- by Valendar F. Turner and Andrew McIntyre". It makes interesting reading.

I like and admire Trink for lots of things, and he's always an interesting read, but this is hardly an area where he has any authority.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seydlitz
[i]Dickhead,

as you say, I am not an American, but I know what you have to put up with.

My own experience is that many american women are shallow, materialistic and somewhat paranoid about women rights etc.

All this makes them very unattractive as companions, although as a European, I have found that I am given a certain "margin" compared to American men. Many American women are willing to accept being told a number of things by a European man, that would make them jump at the throat of the American man who would be foolish enough to say them.

In a way, Europeans are exotic, the more so when they act in a way that contrasts with the US behavior. American women are outraged, but somewhat fascinated.

Still I do not remember ever having had sex with an American woman, because I do find them unattractive. [/i][/QUOTE]

You got that nailed, Seydlitz. Thanks to endless indoctrination by militant educators and feministst, American women are convinced that American men are responsible for the ills of the world. God forbid you be white or towards the conservative end of the spectrum - in that case, you're hosed. I gave up dealing with the games played by American-born women years ago, and will never go back...

I was an Aids Hospice worker for several years. The only hetrosexual Clients I had was one Hemophiiac (Bleeder) A prostitute and a Male wh caught aids from a blood transfusion> This does not discount that aids is not present among Hetrosexuals.
If you are out paying for sex take into consideration were your sex worker was before you came across her. You do not know whether or not she is an IV drug user. Most Curb walkers are getting smart and putting thier needles in places where their tracks won't show. ie between the toes, some Ive heard use thier clit. You do not kow the health habits of their partner before you. For all you know the previous partner was a flaming homosexual who decided to have a one night stand with a female sex worker.
Most Curb workers to begin with have bad health habits. They have fail in the higher class places and they had to resort to street walking. Since they do not eat right, the do not sleep right. They smoke, and 9 out of ten time they are hooked some sort of street drug they have a poor immunity any way so it does not take much for them to become HIV positive.
Thats why I think its suicidal to have sex with a SW with out the use of a condom. The Agency I worked for told me that even with a condom you are playing Russian roulet every time you pick up a street worker.
Heres the even more scary part. The HIV positive part may not even show positive for year. one minute your healthy the next minute you fall with an un explained illness. So as a Fellow *****monger I urge you never to have sex with out the Condom. Bear backing can only mean instant dealth.
One other thing: People with aids get a disease called thrush mouth.(Bleeding gums) You may have a small cut on your penis not detected from a naked eye. This is a big invitation for HIV. So condoms should always be used when getting a BJ

HIV causes AIDs, eventually, get it. Sure? No buts and no ifs. How long it takes depends on how healthy you are, what medications you take (if any) and a few other factors.

The calculated risk per vaginal intercourse is about 1:300-500. The risk from oral sex is lower.

HIV infection rate in Thailand is falling because the government had an enlightened attitude towards prevention (contrast Burma,India and until recently China).

BBJ-well, you make the decision but sex without condom, it is about the same of the risk of death per year of the average age of people on this board.

You can thiank the Islam for the spread of aids in Africa. Because Adultry/ and un married Premiscuity is a lawful sin punishable by stoning most woman take it in the ass so that their Hyman stays in tack