so simr, have you emailed erslist yet to inform them that they should be removing that ad, or are you just trolling this board?
Warning: Another Bareback Full Service Ad!
- Thread starter Sexismyreligion
- Start date
Not sure why all the fuss. If some stupid bitch wants to bareback complete strangers that she's never even met before thats her problem. If a guy is dumb enough to BB an AMP girl then its very likely that he probably has no problem barebacking east side SWs and girls in thailand (which is more prevalent than you can imagine). Its nature's way of thinning out the herd, not sure why everyone has their panties in a knot!
I do not want to troll this board. I have emailed erslist about its policy on advertising BBFS; and am waiting for the response.
I am not sure what you are supporting: BBFS? Its advertising? Or impracticability of banning its advertising?
If you are supporting BBFS or its advertising, I should say we are in different pages, and so it is better to stop the argument.
But, if you are thinking that banning such kinds of ads is not practical, I should say although there are many ways for advertising BBFS, we can always reduce them. For example on Perb, no one can advertise it which IMO will reduce the total risk.
It is mostly dependent who reads such a review. If he wants BBFS, then the review helps him find such an SP. But, if he is looking for a safe SP, then the review tells him to avoid that SP. The situation is like a knife; it can kill or cut a fruit!
Yes it is, because there is no “natural lube” which may cause small injuries in the rectum, and STIs can be transmitted through the blood in those injuries (And so the person who receives it is at a higher risk). Also, the friction can break the condom easier.
But, as long as the anal sex is protected (no broken condom, no anal injuries) its risk is low.
Exactly. Your remarks here support the case for freedom of speech in advertising BBFS.
The same would apply to ads for BBFS, Greek, BBBJ, etc, on erslist or similar sites. Many guys don't want to risk seeing an SP who offers BBBJ. By advertising that she offers it, the SP saves those guys the trouble of asking her. They already know to avoid her from her ad. Likewise those looking for such a service are helped by her advertising it.
A world where condoms never fail and there are no anal injuries need not even be mentioned, since that is a fantasy world. What we want to know is what the risk is in the real world.
To calculate that you need to know how often condoms fail & how much they reduce risk for HIV relative to condomless sex. Is it 5, 10, or 20 times more risky not using a condom compared to using one?
Then comparing that number to the increased risk of anal sex over vaginal sex, one finds out which act is riskier, vaginal BBFS or covered Greek. Is anal 5, 10, or 20 times riskier than vaginal?
If the answer is about 10 in both cases, then the two are of similar HIV risk.
"As regards unprotected heterosexual contacts...estimates for high-income countries are 0.04% per act for female-to-male transmission, and 0.08% per act for male-to-female transmission.[33] The risk of transmission from anal intercourse is especially high, estimated as 1.4–1.7% per act in heterosexual as well as homosexual contacts.[33]..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission
That implies that anal sex is about 20 to 40 times more risky re the disease than vaginal sex.
"The risk reduction of safe sex is not absolute; for example the reduced risk to the receptive partner of acquiring HIV from HIV seropositive partners not wearing condoms to compared to when they wear them is estimated to be about a four- to fivefold.[5]...During each act of anal intercourse, the risk of the receptive partner acquiring HIV from HIV seropositive partners not using condoms is about 1 in 120. Among people using condoms, the receptive partner's risk declines to 1 in 550, a four- to fivefold reduction.[5]...Anal sex is a higher risk activity than vaginal intercourse because the thin tissues of the anus and rectum can be easily damaged.[36][37] Slight injuries can allow the passage of bacteria and viruses, including HIV. This includes by the use of anal toys. Condoms may be more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex, increasing the risk.[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_sex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_sex#Ineffective_methods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_sex#Anal_sex
"A healthy man who has unprotected sex with a non drug-using woman has a one in 5 million chance of getting HIV. If he wears a condom, the odds drop to one in 50 million."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/five-shocking-stats-about-men-and-sex
The above quotes suggest condoms make one 4 to 10 times safer re HIV than not using a condom.
They also imply that anal sex is about 20 to 40 times more risky re the disease than vaginal sex.
Together, that would mean that vaginal BBFS is 2 to 10 times less risky re HIV than covered anal genital intercourse.
Interesting way of looking at it, I guess? lol. So a 11% chance any Asian sex worker in China or who travels has syphillis is OK by you? Syphillis is usually mentioned, btw, as a gateway std, making HIV more readily transmittable to someone with syphillis than someone without.
Please do not support the lenny bbfs troll with confusing statistics, he already has problems with this.
Fixed it for ya, sweetheart!
Now about us getting a room together, who's paying the $20/hr hotel californication room rate.
Be aware, before answering that, this could be a deal breaker.
I love that song & group. But aren't you dating yourself with that? I'd have guessed
you were closer to 18.
pardner, if you'll allow me to nitpick here: if there is no broken condom, and it is used properly, and there is no leakage, and there are no anal injuries, then the risk is zero
just being real here
There were originally four ads with a couple of phone numbers.
Sometime, the day after this thread appeared, these ads were modified, likely by the micro operator, to remove the BBFS references.
Today a search on ERSList for these phone numbers yields not a single ad.
Was it the micro operator or ERSList who removed? Cannot say, of course.
I would think the micro would want to keep the modified ads active.
ERSList are members of this board, and likely saw this thread.
Now that CL's therapeutic is completely open to erotic ads, these two numbers have ads there, with modest wording.
Last edited:
I can only guess at the possibilities of what happened:
1. Whoever was offering BBFS to clients got some good advice, changed their mind & is no longer doing so. Which BTW might not occur if advertising did not bring it to the white knight's (advisor's) attention.
2. The BBFS advertiser decided to not mention it in ads, or to do so "with modest wording". To avoid having the ad pulled or not recieve complaints, for examples.
3. Business from the ads was so good re BBFS interest, the phones were ringing off the hook, so it was time to pull them or at least stop mentioning that in the ads. Maybe other workers who do not do BBFS need clients too.
Further to the subject of BBFS vs covered Greek, i came across the following comment:
"Unprotected anal sex is a very high risk activity for a bottom, much more so than for a top. The risk of HIV transmission to a bottom during unprotected anal sex is 15 in 1,000 versus 3 in 10,000 from a bottom to a top."
http://www.sfcityclinic.org/stdbasics/stdchart.asp
So 15 in 1000, or about 1 in 67 chance of getting HIV.
Last edited:
I tend to agree many guys want this service for one very simple reason. It feels better. So I guess it comes down to whether the risk is worth the reward?
I have been offered and it has been tempting to say yes in the heat of the moment, but so far my big head has beat out the little one.
I also think way more ladies offer this service than we might be comfortable believing. I have no idea how many but I tend to think ads worded with "very open-minded, little to no restrictions. Pse" are possible clues that this SP may offer that service.
Very interesting debate though.
you would be surprised at the range of services the wording you indicated actually represents - from all out bbfs to i'll take your money and my pimp will show up and intimidate you out the apartment
in the final analysis, they're all just ads
Taken from the Health Canada webpage:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/diseases-maladies/hiv-vih-eng.php#hivc
" The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) estimates that approximately 65,000 people were living with HIV infection in Canada at the end of 2008...
...According to Summary: Estimates of HIV Prevalence and Incidence in Canada, 2008, men who have sex with men continue to be the group most affected by HIV/AIDS in Canada. Estimates were classified according to the following exposure categories for new infections:
•44% were men who have sex with men;
•17% were people who use injection drugs;
•3% were men who have sex with men and use injection drugs;
•36% were heterosexuals.
At the end of 2008, women living with HIV accounted for approximately 22% of the national total. Aboriginal peoples account for a disproportionately high percentage of the individuals living with HIV infection in Canada. Although Aboriginal peoples represented only 3.8% of the Canadian population in the 2006 census, they accounted for approximately 7.4% of individuals living with HIV and for 12.5% of those who were newly infected."
Statistics splits amongst those infected:
47% gay men / 22% women / 31% hetero men
17% injection users - 3% gay injection users = 14% are injection users who are not gay men, thus:
14% x (22%/(22%+31%) = 14% x 41.51% = 5.81% are female injection users (assuming male/female split provided*)
14% x (31%/(22%+31%) = 14% x 58.5% = 8.19% are hetero male injection users (assuming male/female split provided*)
(*my assumption of a 50/50 weighted split between male/female injection users probably is skewed. It just seems through life experience that a majority of injection users are probably going to be weighted heavily on the male side. If this is the case, then the final calculations found later for both males and females who are not IV drug users would need adjusting)
Therefore, if 22% of HIV carriers are female,
22% - 5.81% female injection users = 16.19% are females who do not use injection drugs
78% - 47% - 8.19% = 22.81% are hetero males who do not use injection drugs
% of all people (male/female) in Canada with HIV: 65,000/32,000,000 = 0.203% (<1%, or approx 1 in 500) of the entire population;
% of males in Canada with HIV: 78% x 0.203% = 0.158% (1 in 650 people, or approx 1 in 325 males assuming 50/50 male/female split)
% of females in Canada with HIV: 22% x 0.203% = 0.044% (1 in 2,250 people, or approx 1 in 1,125 females assuming 50/50 male/female split)
% of straight males who do not use IV drugs in Canada with HIV: 22.81% x 0.203% = 0.046% (approx 1 in 2,175 people, or 1 in 1,088 males assuming 50/50 male/female split)
% of females who do not use IV drugs in Canada with HIV: 16.19% x 0.203% = 0.033% (approx 1 in 3,000 people, or 1 in 1,500 females assuming 50/50 male/female split)
So, if I manage to stay away from having sex with a gay man or any IV drug users, then if I'm lucky enough to have sex with approximately 1,500 women, then statistically one of them should have HIV.
I would imagine I'll be able to stay away from anyone who clearly uses, or who clearly has HIV.
And what is the probability of the disease being transferred in that 1 out of 1,500 unfortunate encounter?
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/diseases-maladies/hiv-vih-eng.php#hivc
" The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) estimates that approximately 65,000 people were living with HIV infection in Canada at the end of 2008...
...According to Summary: Estimates of HIV Prevalence and Incidence in Canada, 2008, men who have sex with men continue to be the group most affected by HIV/AIDS in Canada. Estimates were classified according to the following exposure categories for new infections:
•44% were men who have sex with men;
•17% were people who use injection drugs;
•3% were men who have sex with men and use injection drugs;
•36% were heterosexuals.
At the end of 2008, women living with HIV accounted for approximately 22% of the national total. Aboriginal peoples account for a disproportionately high percentage of the individuals living with HIV infection in Canada. Although Aboriginal peoples represented only 3.8% of the Canadian population in the 2006 census, they accounted for approximately 7.4% of individuals living with HIV and for 12.5% of those who were newly infected."
Statistics splits amongst those infected:
47% gay men / 22% women / 31% hetero men
17% injection users - 3% gay injection users = 14% are injection users who are not gay men, thus:
14% x (22%/(22%+31%) = 14% x 41.51% = 5.81% are female injection users (assuming male/female split provided*)
14% x (31%/(22%+31%) = 14% x 58.5% = 8.19% are hetero male injection users (assuming male/female split provided*)
(*my assumption of a 50/50 weighted split between male/female injection users probably is skewed. It just seems through life experience that a majority of injection users are probably going to be weighted heavily on the male side. If this is the case, then the final calculations found later for both males and females who are not IV drug users would need adjusting)
Therefore, if 22% of HIV carriers are female,
22% - 5.81% female injection users = 16.19% are females who do not use injection drugs
78% - 47% - 8.19% = 22.81% are hetero males who do not use injection drugs
% of all people (male/female) in Canada with HIV: 65,000/32,000,000 = 0.203% (<1%, or approx 1 in 500) of the entire population;
% of males in Canada with HIV: 78% x 0.203% = 0.158% (1 in 650 people, or approx 1 in 325 males assuming 50/50 male/female split)
% of females in Canada with HIV: 22% x 0.203% = 0.044% (1 in 2,250 people, or approx 1 in 1,125 females assuming 50/50 male/female split)
% of straight males who do not use IV drugs in Canada with HIV: 22.81% x 0.203% = 0.046% (approx 1 in 2,175 people, or 1 in 1,088 males assuming 50/50 male/female split)
% of females who do not use IV drugs in Canada with HIV: 16.19% x 0.203% = 0.033% (approx 1 in 3,000 people, or 1 in 1,500 females assuming 50/50 male/female split)
So, if I manage to stay away from having sex with a gay man or any IV drug users, then if I'm lucky enough to have sex with approximately 1,500 women, then statistically one of them should have HIV.
I would imagine I'll be able to stay away from anyone who clearly uses, or who clearly has HIV.
And what is the probability of the disease being transferred in that 1 out of 1,500 unfortunate encounter?
Last edited:
It's actually quite low per coital act according to research papers on google. The problem is, while your math is right for grabbing a random woman from the population and having sex, thats not what's going on here.
The transmission rates are significantly higher when the disease is first contracted, and both the men and women we are concerned about here have a large number of different partners over a relatively short period of time. Since initial HIV symptoms are trivial or nonexistant a single infection could spread throughout the community undetected for a long period of time. Even the dropping out of the system of those who are detected has little effect on the spread as the undetected will continue the trend.
The statistical chance to be infected from a single encounter with a single person is quite low, but none of us are here for single encounters.
I intentionally calculated this for random people.
And if you believe what every SP and pooner here says, then on the professional level virtually NOONE does bareback intercourse between SP and client. (and this is likely the case in most circumstances).
I think through experience we also all know that the girl you picked up from the bar is more likely to go bareback with a guy than an SP in a random client interaction.
So really, where is there a higher risk then? Civil life or SP industry? You've made an assumption because of the volume of clients an SP sees, but there are women who aren't pros (and likely there are many, many more non-pros out there than pros) who see many men multiple times a week.
Of course, people in the SP industry also mingle in civil life and vice-versa as well.
A couple is going to go sans-condom if they want to, and it doesn't matter if its during the course of this business or not. I do believe that an SP will use condoms in most (if not all) of their business interactions anyways - unless they are right into the guy they are seeing and if they trust them. But I don't think that this occurence is likely to happen much more or much less whether the people are paretaking in a pro transaction or not.
The participants either trust each other or not, or are too heated up to give two shits at a given moment. That's all there is to it.
My mistake, I was under the impression that you were advocating for the relaxing of condom use in SP/Client relationships because of the low transmission rates.
I agree with everything you mentioned above, and fully believe that escorts are safer than picking up girls in bars, ect. (with regards to HIV infection anyways) Primarily due to common safety practices.
I'm sorry, I dont actually understand these sentences. Are you saying that this occurance (HIV infection? or condom use?) is the same whether or not it's with civvies or sp's? No matter how I read this it seems to conflict with what you've written above.
I didn't advocate any position (pro or con) regarding condom use above. I just stated facts, and then gave an opinion about what I think happens in the industry, which is that people, all people, whether it be during the course of a professional transaction, or whether it be from a social interaction outside it, may find themselves motivated to engage in bareback intercourse if they are attracted to each other and trust each other.
If they don't trust each other and/or they aren't attracted to each other then its unlikely to occur (most client/SP relationships). If they do trust and are hot for each other - then it probably doesn't matter if its a business relationship or not but it is more likely to occur then obviously. They are going to be intimate with each other if they want to and that intimacy might not know any boundaries.
How often that occurs in or out of the industry we don't know, but we suspect that a higher percentage of encounters in the SP industry involve protected intercourse than outside it because SPs engage sexually with their partners MOST of the time because its first and foremost a business for them. Because of that we also can't know the difference between what the transmission rates are in the industry versus outside it because we do know there are occasions where an SP (because she is human after all) may be more intimate with (very) select clients than others.
Hello friends, I have not read the entire thread but would like to mention that I stay away from erslist because I get some pretty creepy people wanting to chat me up there looking for all sorts of "extras" and it happens every single time I log on. Requests for things that are very risky (bbfs and scat are the usual requests) which I find very offensive, and so I end up banning someone who usually comes back as another id, some of the users there are much bolder than here on Perb. It just has such a different vibe that it actually keeps me away from that site. Not sure of all of your experiences out there, both men and ladies, but I am not willing to support that type of activity by participating in the site. They should have more moderation or something to help keep everyone safer, flags on words like bbfs, etc... Cheers and stay safe xo 
