Warning: Another Bareback Full Service Ad!

[Caramel]

I didn't read this entire thread, but there are a lot of "no cover for $130" ads posted all day. It seems the users do pay for extra bumps, so I think its allowed.
http://www.erslist.com/asian/w4m/delta-surrey-langley/153741-special-130-no-cover

Sorry if I can't post that.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

I didn't read this entire thread, but there are a lot of "no cover for $130" ads posted all day. It seems the users do pay for extra bumps, so I think its allowed.
http://www.erslist.com/asian/w4m/delta-surrey-langley/153741-special-130-no-cover

Sorry if I can't post that.

from the linked ad

My special services include: GREEK C..I..M 69 ,RI**MMING, B,,,B,,,B,,,J. No cover

clever ad writing though... it could be said that the phrase 'no cover' is a clarification of the acronym 'BBBJ'

sort of leaves it up to the imagination of the reader

 

[lenny]

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?

As i recall poster bcneil estimated the chance of getting HIV from BBFS with a random Canadian female as 1 in a million. Your odds would improve if you avoided drug users in the DTES, used a condom or your partner had tested negative for the disease or other STIs.

The probability of transmission would vary depending on a number of factors, but as an average research studies usually have it at around 1 infection per 1000 times you have penile to vaginal BBFS.

 

[huggzy]

As i recall poster bcneil estimated the chance of getting HIV from BBFS with a random Canadian female as 1 in a million. Your odds would improve if you avoided drug users in the DTES, used a condom or your partner had tested negative for the disease or other STIs.

The probability of transmission would vary depending on a number of factors, but as an average research studies usually have it at around 1 infection per 1000 times you have penile to vaginal BBFS.

I don't know these research studies you're referring to...if you have them it would be informative to post a link to them.

That said, then my calculation wouldn't be a huge order of magnitude different then BCNeil's if he calculated the chance of getting HIV from BBFS at 1 in a million:

1,500 x 1,000 = 1 in 1,500,000 occurences of BBFS with random females (non IV drug user)

 

[yazoo]

I think that those stats conflate two separate probabilities. The first are the odds of your partner being infectious. (As opposed to infected). Obviously if they are not infectious you are not going to catch anything.

The second is assuming you have found an infectious partner, the risk of transmission. The sti calculator is a good place to start.

But that's for just one isolated event. I think most of us repeat a bit. So now you have to deal with the gamblers fallacy - each new SP is the same odds as the last. But if you repeat with the same SP then the events are not independent and these numbers don't work because you have to adjust for the increased risk of transmission.

I ran myself through the calculator for my last session. I said that the SP had had a recent negative HIV test, I had a BBBJ and CFS. My odds of catching an STI (any STI) was 5.7%

 

[huggzy]

I think that those stats conflate two separate probabilities. The first are the odds of your partner being infectious. (As opposed to infected). Obviously if they are not infectious you are not going to catch anything.

The second is assuming you have found an infectious partner, the risk of transmission. The sti calculator is a good place to start.

But that's for just one isolated event. I think most of us repeat a bit. So now you have to deal with the gamblers fallacy - each new SP is the same odds as the last. But if you repeat with the same SP then the events are not independent and these numbers don't work because you have to adjust for the increased risk of transmission.

I ran myself through the calculator for my last session. I said that the SP had had a recent negative HIV test, I had a BBBJ and CFS. My odds of catching an STI (any STI) was 5.7%

Clearly his 1 in 1000 figure assumes that intercourse is had with an infectious person. So its safe to use that statistic as a worst case scenario. Clearly a person may have sex with someone who is HIV and not infectious, which would therefore decrease these odds.

And obviously we haven't touched on other STIs. That's an entirely different matter obviously however I'm pretty sure your 5.7% calculation of catching any STI thru bbbj and covered full service is waaaaay off.

 

[lenny]

I don`t know these research studies you`re referring to...if you have them it would be informative to post a link to them.

That said, then my calculation wouldn`t be a huge order of magnitude different then BCNeil`s if he calculated the chance of getting HIV from BBFS at 1 in a million:

1,500 x 1,000 = 1 in 1,500,000 occurences of BBFS with random females (non IV drug user)

Post #77 on page 6 (logged out) in the following thread titled "Discussion Lost another Regular to BBFS WTF!" has links to several studies:


https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?166295-Discussion-Lost-another-Regular-to-BBFS-WTF!/page6


Related to the same subject are also posts 24, 55, 88, 109, 112 via the above url. For example, from post 55:

"If a person receives a blood transfusion with HIV-infected blood, there is a 95 percent risk they will become infected with the virus. 4 However the chances of becoming infected with HIV through a blood transfusion varies between countries depending on the level of safety precautions in place, and there is a notable difference between high and low-income countries. In the UK, the risk is now 1 in 5 million. 5"

http://www.avert.org/blood-safety-hiv.htm

One in 5 million. This gives some idea of the HIV risk in having one act of bareback sex with an individual (aged 17 to 65) who has just had this NAT test & donated blood. Certainly it would be riskier with a FT gogo girl or streetwalker in Bangkok, but the million dollar question is, by how much. Note also that recieving HIV in blood as a donor will almost surely infect you (95 percent of the time, as stated) , whereas one act of BB sex with an infected lady is very unlikely to cause you harm (maybe 1 in 2000 chance of getting HIV)*. Factor into that the miniscule chance a SP who recently tested negative for STIs (using NAT & antibody tests) is HIV positive and the conclusion is your odds of getting HIV from her are extremely low, such as when using a condom with a SP whose HIV status you have no clue about.

*So the BBFS risk would be more like 5 million X 2000.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

I think that those stats conflate two separate probabilities. The first are the odds of your partner being infectious. (As opposed to infected). Obviously if they are not infectious you are not going to catch anything.

The second is assuming you have found an infectious partner, the risk of transmission. The sti calculator is a good place to start.

But that's for just one isolated event. I think most of us repeat a bit. So now you have to deal with the gamblers fallacy - each new SP is the same odds as the last. But if you repeat with the same SP then the events are not independent and these numbers don't work because you have to adjust for the increased risk of transmission.

I ran myself through the calculator for my last session. I said that the SP had had a recent negative HIV test, I had a BBBJ and CFS. My odds of catching an STI (any STI) was 5.7%

the 'sti calculator' referred to above is fucked up

i ran a few scenarios to see what would happen, including one in which bbfs was performed with a prostitute

the result of the bbfs with a prostitute scenario indicated that the likelihood of the female partner having hiv was something like 12%

wtf? excepting herpes, hiv is the least prevalent of all the sti's yet the liklihoods of all the other sti's were less than hiv! in some cases a LOT less!

nope... no credibility there at all...

and for the record, the odds of a non-infected male catching hiv from an infected female are something like 3 in 10,000. that is, if you lived with an hiv-infected female, you could fuck her unprotected, on average, 3,000 times before you became infected too...

or you could get infected the first time if you were unlucky...

 

[huggzy]

the 'sti calculator' referred to above is fucked up

i ran a few scenarios to see what would happen, including one in which bbfs was performed with a prostitute

the result of the bbfs with a prostitute scenario indicated that the likelihood of the female partner having hiv was something like 12%

wtf? excepting herpes, hiv is the least prevalent of all the sti's yet the liklihoods of all the other sti's were less than hiv! in some cases a LOT less!

nope... no credibility there at all...

and for the record, the odds of a non-infected male catching hiv from an infected female are something like 3 in 10,000. that is, if you lived with an hiv-infected female, you could fuck her unprotected, on average, 3,000 times before you became infected too...

or you could get infected the first time if you were unlucky...

Yes. I did the STI test too and it said the probability of my sex partner (an sp) carrying syphilis was 100%, herpes 80% and HIV 12%. I don't give that website much credibility at all.

Lenny says his stats show that an HIV infected female will infect her male partner thru intercourse 1 in 1000 times, you say 1 in 3,333 times (if you have a link showing this statistic it would be helpful).

Therefore based on my calculations this would give a range of:

Chances of a male catching HIV from a random female (not an IV drug user) through unprotected intercourse:

1,500 x 1,000 = 1 in 1,500,000 bbfs occurences (with non IV drug using female) to

1,500 x 3,333 = 1 in 4,999,500 bbfs occurences (with non IV drug using female)

I suppose this range jives with Lenny's post of 1 in 5,000,000 and BCNeil's calculation at 1 in 1,000,000 isn't far out. So we're probably on the right track here.

That's a lot of fucking a guy's gotta do to catch this disease. It's not quite the "deathwish" all the fear mongerers out there want to make you feel like bbfs would be. If you fucked random chicks 10 times a day 365 days per year for 60 years sans cover you won't approach those numbers (I only wish I could do that!!)

 

[vancity_cowboy]

That's a lot of fucking a guy's gotta do to catch this disease. It's not quite the "deathwish" all the fear mongerers out there want to make you feel like bbfs would be. If you fucked random chicks 10 times a day 365 days per year for 60 years sans cover you won't approach those numbers (I only wish I could do that!!)

you're right... sorta

all of the above numbers are 'probabilities' though. so if the stars are aligned improperly for you, then the very first bbfs session you have just might be with an unsuspecting carrier, and that single session just might be the 'one in 3,300' that transmits the disease to you

so the best policy for you is 'wrap it up' unless you're dealing with a known quantity

but you're right about the fear mongerers

 

[huggzy]

you're right... sorta

all of the above numbers are 'probabilities' though. so if the stars are aligned improperly for you, then the very first bbfs session you have just might be with an unsuspecting carrier, and that single session just might be the 'one in 3,300' that transmits the disease to you

so the best policy for you is 'wrap it up' unless you're dealing with a known quantity

but you're right about the fear mongerers

All we have are probabilities and statistics in life to make judgements about what you want to do.

You do know you could die every time you get in your car. When you say that the "best policy for you is 'wrap it up' unless you're dealing with a known quantity", do you only walk wherever you go as well? (I don't think so) You have a much higher probability of dying in a car accident than catching HIV.

You might die in the first time you get into a car too.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

...you say 1 in 3,333 times (if you have a link showing this statistic it would be helpful).

here are a couple of references. the numbers vary somewhat, but certainly they are all the same order of magnitude

Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb; 9 (2) :118-29.

Heterosexual risk of HIV-1 infection per sexual act: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Boily MC, Baggaley RF, Wang L, Masse B, White RG, Hayes RJ, Alary M.

Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK. mc.boily@imperial.ac.uk

Abstract.

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies of the risk of HIV-1 transmission per heterosexual contact. 43 publications comprising 25 different study populations were identified. Pooled female-to-male (0. 04% per act [95% CI 0. 01-0. 14]) and male-to-female (0. 08% per act [95% CI 0. 06-0. 11]) transmission estimates in high-income countries indicated a low risk of infection in the absence of antiretrovirals. Low-income country female-to-male (0. 38% per act [95% CI 0. 13-1. 10]) and male-to-female (0. 30% per act [95% CI 0. 14-0. 63]) estimates in the absence of commercial sex exposure (CSE) were higher. In meta-regression analysis, the infectivity across estimates in the absence of CSE was significantly associated with sex, setting, the interaction between setting and sex, and antenatal HIV prevalence. The pooled receptive anal intercourse estimate was much higher (1. 7% per act [95% CI 0. 3-8. 9]). Estimates for the early and late phases of HIV infection were 9. 2 (95% CI 4. 5-18. 8) and 7. 3 (95% CI 4. 5-11. 9) times larger, respectively, than for the asymptomatic phase. After adjusting for CSE, presence or history of genital ulcers in either couple member increased per-act infectivity 5. 3 (95% CI 1. 4-19. 5) times versus no sexually transmitted infection. Study estimates among non-circumcised men were at least twice those among circumcised men. Low-income country estimates were more heterogeneous than high-income country estimates, which indicates poorer study quality, greater heterogeneity of risk factors, or under-reporting of high-risk behaviour. Efforts are needed to better understand these differences and to quantify infectivity in low-income countries.

and

Drs. Katz and Gerberding: The quantitative risk associated with a specific sexual exposure to HIV is hard to measure. The available data suggest that the probability of transmission through a single episode of rectal or vaginal intercourse with someone known to be HIV infected is within the same order of magnitude as that associated with occupational needle punctures (0.003). Probability of transmission is highest for unprotected receptive anal intercourse (0.008 to 0.032). Unprotected receptive vaginal intercourse (0.0005 to 0.0015) is riskier than insertive vaginal intercourse (0.0003 to 0.0009).

http://aids-clinical-care.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1998/201/1

you'll find that data on these transmission rates are devilishly difficult to root out. the usual sources give all kinds of data regarding occurrence but darn little regarding transmission rates

 

[huggzy]

here are a couple of references. the numbers vary somewhat, but certainly they are all the same order of magnitude



and



http://aids-clinical-care.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1998/201/1

you'll find that data on these transmission rates are devilishly difficult to root out. the usual sources give all kinds of data regarding occurrence but darn little regarding transmission rates

So if I'm reading this correctly, the rate of transmission from an infected female to a male is 0.04% per act, or 1 in 2,500, and the rate of transmission from male to female is 0.08% per act, or 1 in 1,250 occurences.

For women, 1088 x 1,250 = 1 in 1,360,000 acts of bbfs with men (who are not IV drug users)

I guess these numbers falls right smack dab inbetween the other calculations.

I think that there are other risks that people need to be more concerned about when it comes to sex (pregnancy, other STIs etc.) than this. Of course no one ever wants to be that unlucky 1 in a million person, but the whole idea that everybody comes in and curb-stomps an sp/client/civi for doing what has come naturally to people in this world for thousands of years is pretty hypocritical - considering the industry this is and that there are much higher risks we are taking every time we partake (violence for one).

After all, most civies would deem escorting an incredibly high-risk activity to begin with - who are we to judge?

 

[vancity_cowboy]

So if I'm reading this correctly, the rate of transmission from an infected female to a male is 0.04% per act, or 1 in 2,500, and the rate of transmission from male to female is 0.08% per act, or 1 in 1,250 occurences.

For women, 1088 x 1,250 = 1 in 1,360,000 acts of bbfs with men (who are not IV drug users)

I guess these numbers falls right smack dab inbetween the other calculations.

the numbers vary of course because they are all based on numerical models - i mean nobody is there counting - but the fact that many different studies all cluster around the same order of magnitude tends to lend them credence

 

[bcneil]

Yes. I did the STI test too and it said the probability of my sex partner (an sp) carrying syphilis was 100%, herpes 80% and HIV 12%. I don't give that website much credibility at all.

Lenny says his stats show that an HIV infected female will infect her male partner thru intercourse 1 in 1000 times, you say 1 in 3,333 times (if you have a link showing this statistic it would be helpful).

Therefore based on my calculations this would give a range of:

Chances of a male catching HIV from a random female (not an IV drug user) through unprotected intercourse:

1,500 x 1,000 = 1 in 1,500,000 bbfs occurences (with non IV drug using female) to

1,500 x 3,333 = 1 in 4,999,500 bbfs occurences (with non IV drug using female)

I suppose this range jives with Lenny's post of 1 in 5,000,000 and BCNeil's calculation at 1 in 1,000,000 isn't far out. So we're probably on the right track here.

That's a lot of fucking a guy's gotta do to catch this disease. It's not quite the "deathwish" all the fear mongerers out there want to make you feel like bbfs would be. If you fucked random chicks 10 times a day 365 days per year for 60 years sans cover you won't approach those numbers (I only wish I could do that!!)

My 1 in a million calculation was on the extreme.
That was a thread long ago. But the math is very easy.
All you need is the % people infected, and the likelyhood of transmission.

So yes 1/1500 women in Canada have hiv. I adjusted this to 1/1000 to eliminate girls who are not of sexual age (hence very unlikely to have hiv)

Then you just need the transmission rate for hiv positive female, to non-infected male.

Now this ranges depending on where you look.
The lowest I have seen was from Fox news, they reported 1 in 900
Other various medical sites, like the WHO, Oxford University, the Mayo Clinic, Centre for disease control....so forth
Range between 1 in 1000 all the way to 1 in 10,000.

So do that math!

Results are anywhere between 1 in 900,000 to 1 in 10,000,000.

With a condom....
Condom manufactures claim 97% effectiveness with their product.
Which make these already extremely unlikely events to become basically powerball odds.

The fun part is ANAL SEX. This got me a couple mean spirited PM's by people that have no clue how stats work.

Anal sex has a much higher transmission rate, especially for male to female.

Do the math.

Anal sex with a condom has basically the same risk as BBFS.

 

[huggzy]

Anal sex with a condom has basically the same risk as BBFS.

Uh oh...you may have just touched off a shitstorm with this comment (or rather, maybe this comment might (actually, should) make people go "hmmmmmm")

 

[yazoo]

All we have are probabilities and statistics in life to make judgements about what you want to do.

You do know you could die every time you get in your car. When you say that the "best policy for you is 'wrap it up' unless you're dealing with a known quantity", do you only walk wherever you go as well? (I don't think so) You have a much higher probability of dying in a car accident than catching HIV.

You might die in the first time you get into a car too.

What a good analogy! We can die everytime we get in a car. We could die 5 minutes into our very first car ride. But we choose to drive as the benefits and enjoyment we receive from driving outweigh the potential risks.

We do however mitigate those risks by wearing our seat belt, and driving at the speed limit. In other words we practice safer driving.

Also we can choose every once in a while to say, what the hell, I'm going to be reckless and speed - just because it feels good. And just as on the roads, we don't just risk our own lives but those of others too. Our selfishness is essentially anti social.

 

[huggzy]

What a good analogy! We can die everytime we get in a car. We could die 5 minutes into our very first car ride. But we choose to drive as the benefits and enjoyment we receive from driving outweigh the potential risks.

We do however mitigate those risks by wearing our seat belt, and driving at the speed limit. In other words we practice safer driving.

Also we can choose every once in a while to say, what the hell, I'm going to be reckless and speed - just because it feels good. And just as on the roads, we don't just risk our own lives but those of others too. Our selfishness is essentially anti social.

Get off the soapbox man.

1. People are hypocrites (ie. if we want to carry the driving analogy to the extreme, how much do you think your dependence on oil is responsible for the many wars that the western world engages in?)

2. You just used the word "reckless" - so explain to us what your definition of "reckless" is then, because clearly 1 in 1,000,000 falls within the boundaries of your definition.

3. You could probably alleviate any risk of catching HIV if

a) you castrated yourself, or
b) you stopped having sex, or
c) you wrapped yourself up in duct tape during sex

amongst a number of other measures you could take to protect yourself from your own shadow. The truth of the matter is that people in this world are motivated to do what they do for nearly almost everything they do because they find an activity is pleasurable - some activities have no risk, some have low risk, and some are high risk. The problem here is that people are at odds from what they interpret as "reckless" behaviour because many people a) are ignorant of the statistics and clearly fall for the fear mongering without thinking about things, or b) they have a different risk tolerance than others.

No one is saying you should go bbfs from this point going forward. However I think this discussion clearly illustrates that people such as yourself perpetuate myths about the actual scale of the risk people are taking if they happen to choose this activity.

You sound like one of these people who would never have intercourse with anyone without protection irrespective of your relationship. Is this the case, because there will always be "some" risk involved with this activity.

 

[erotq]

Or the BBFS advertiser was not actually offering it...just baiting the hook to reel in customers and not providing the service after taking the money and in the heat of the moment.

This is most likely the case

 

[vancity_cowboy]

...c) you wrapped yourself up in duct tape during sex...

taking the duct tape off would be a hillbilly brazilian, would it not? ound: