again I obviously need to clarify that I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF BB!!!! what i am simply trying to state is you can transmit things even with a condom. yes they dramatically reduce the risk (thus the reason for their existence) but are not 100% fool proof. I am no doctor and maybe my post do belong in the health forum, but im pretty sure that ANY fluid exchange has the risk of transmitting whatever. but by your theory, all pornstars are on a suicide mission as well then? maybe so..... but its their risk to accept and face the consequence. on the same token, would you be happy knowing you just had sex with a provider who may or may not be HIV positive, but wore a condom anyways????? I would still be damn pissed, there is still the risk. yes BB is a total risk, but even with a condom, there is still a risk. 0.00001% to me is STILL A RISK. YOU NEED TO WAKE UP!!
Discussion - Lost another Regular to BBFS... WTF!
- Thread starter t1163
- Start date
- Status
good question.
If 4 pornstars discover they are positive for HIV and they have BBfucked many other pornstars what would that mean? All of them?
If 4 pornstars discover they are positive for HIV and they have BBfucked many other pornstars what would that mean? All of them?
a lost cause
would you be happy knowing you just had sex with a provider who may or may not be HIV positive, but wore a condom anyways?????
no shit, the amount of clients a SP sees, the above goes without saying. dude, everytime you put your dick out there with an escort, YOU ARE TAKING a risk - THAT IS WHY condom is a must. always assume the worst.
yes BB is a total risk, but even with a condom, there is still a risk. 0.00001% to me is STILL A RISK. YOU NEED TO WAKE UP!
i guess you might as well quit this hobby since when ever you hire an escort, you run the risk, based on your own logic.
look, the risk is just not theirs or someone elses, by being ignorant, the person(s) are indirectly promoting STD.
can't believe i have to explain this...
i just read your reply and i think you are debating for the sake of debate.
would you be happy knowing you just had sex with a provider who may or may not be HIV positive, but wore a condom anyways?????
no shit, the amount of clients a SP sees, the above goes without saying. dude, everytime you put your dick out there with an escort, YOU ARE TAKING a risk - THAT IS WHY condom is a must. always assume the worst.
yes BB is a total risk, but even with a condom, there is still a risk. 0.00001% to me is STILL A RISK. YOU NEED TO WAKE UP!
i guess you might as well quit this hobby since when ever you hire an escort, you run the risk, based on your own logic.
look, the risk is just not theirs or someone elses, by being ignorant, the person(s) are indirectly promoting STD.
can't believe i have to explain this...
agreed 110%. nobody understands the idea of 'to each their own'. ive just about had it with ppl preaching their agendas on others. so what youre against bbfs. thats great. then dont do it. but dont come here and yell at everyone else with a differing opinion like youre the only authority on the matter. like you being safe means your better than me. get off the high horse.
ill be honest. ive had bbsex before. ladies in red or elsewhere arent excluded from this. bbfs knows no boundaries on race, status or whatever. so the concept only old aunties at micros do it is such ignorant bullshit. chemistry between two ppl dictates everything. and any lady that says i wont do it for xyz amount is full of shit too. it happens. a lot. and a lot more than naive ppl seem to think cuz the lady says shes all-safe she always is. yah eh. get your head out of your ass. if your against it then dont do it. but dont tell me how to live my life. and quit that suicide mission rhetoric, you know its a sham.
it is not "false security", it is the ONLY security one has with FS. risk in this hobby is quite high if you DO NOT use condom, risk is actually fairly low if you use proper protection(condom), no BBBJ, and NO COB or COF or COT(for the ladies).
as far as herpes goes, you are correct, however, you can get that at a niteclub getting oral sex from that person.
anyways, based on the feedback from some others, it seems there are SPs out there who engages in BBFS and it is not isolated. shit, i should think about staying just with CBJs from now.
Here is some of the latest info re HIV tests.
The Health Nurse commented on the subject of the NAT test for HIV:
"The HIV DNA PCR (NAAT test) 90% of people would test positive by 10-12 days after being infected and 95-98% of people would test positive 4-6 weeks after being infected."
"...Currently with the latest antibody test in Canada 95% of people who test positive will do so within 34 days of exposure to HIV."
https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?134988-HIV-Symtoms-Worries&highlight=antigen
"Since routine HIV antibody tests yield negative results during the first four to five weeks of HIV infection,6 acute infections can be diagnosed during this period only with the use of tests for viral antigens, nucleic acids, or both.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa042291
There is also the p24 antigen test for HIV which is covered by BC health care:
"The p24 antigen test detects actual HIV viral protein in blood. The test is generally positive from about one week to 3-4 weeks after infection with HIV.
http://labtestsonline.org/understanding/analytes/p24/tab/test
"Fourth generation tests
"Some of the most modern HIV tests combine P24 antigen tests with standard antibody tests to reduce the ‘diagnostic window’. Testing for antibodies and P24 antigen simultaneously has the advantage of enabling earlier and more accurate HIV detection.
"In the UK, fourth generation tests are the primary recommendation for HIV testing among individuals, but are not offered by all testing sites.1 During June 2010, the FDA approved the first fourth generation test in the United States.2"
http://www.avert.org/testing.htm
These tests are useful to identify an infection of HIV in the early "acute" stage of HIV so it can be treated more effetively and when it is the most infectious.
"...the HIV antibody test will not detect a recently infected donor, so some blood banks use a p24 antigen or HIV nucleic acid test in addition to the basic antibody test to detect infected donors during that period."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_donation
Re HIV tests, you are safest getting the usual antibody test together with either NAT or p24 antigen.
"In 2009 blood screened for HIV in Greater Accra, Ghana amounted to 33, 294 units of blood, of which 3. 68 percent was found to be HIV positive. 45 Ghana tests 100 percent of its blood donations, however this is done using only antibody tests. Therefore the window period remains a significant interval, which suggests some units may continue to pass through screening undetected.
"In October 2005, South Africa introduced NAT testing and as a result there were no cases of HIV transmission by blood transfusion reported to the haemovigilance programme, a transfusion surveillance system. 46 47
"The availability of nucleic acid tests (NAT) , which reduces the window period and makes testing much more accurate, helped to support the argument for a change in the ban against MSM donating. These tests have been found to almost eliminate the possibility that HIV infected blood will pass through the testing stage, even in countries with high prevalence. 33"
"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.
Last edited:
you dont need to explain to me. and yes it simply was for arguments / deabte sake. the only reason I got involved in this discussion is we all agree that this hobby is risky and should try to minimize it at all cost, however I just wanted to point out the banality of some perspectives that putting a condom on solves everything when it doesnt. why hide from the fact that there is BB going on or there are people who DO have STD's that are actively participating in this hobby. the guy who is "clean" without a condom VS the guy who is infected with a condom was only a point of comparision. you cannot contract something from someone who doesnt have anything while you can get somthing from someone who is positive wearing a condom (even if only 0.001%) an escort who offers full GFE / PSE puts herself at just a high risk as someone offering BB in my opinion. if you have to assume the worst, why is someone who wants BB sooo much worse than someone who offers BBBJ, squirting, Golden showers etc? maybe my opinion is wrong, thus my belief in no BB, but thats my belief. I am not trying to stir the pot, just getting opinions and other point of views out there. yes we need to practise safe sex, but the understanding and acceptance of said risk is what needs to be better understood by both pooner and provider.
you may as well cut daty out of your act too. lest you start eating a previously pied pussy. but oh wait you think it doesnt happen that often. in that case carry on
OK, you go dude! yeah, i have some high agenda here?? high horse?? personally, i couldn't give a crap if you catch something.
chemistry between 2 people? what chemistry? you are paying another person to have sex with you, everything else is a fantasy.
obviously, judging on some response here, there are some people who are risk takers, i am done with his thread.
I have moved this thread to the health forum to encourage the Health Nurse to respond to some of the postings regarding health and safety. To be clear, we will be taking the HN's comments as expert not the randomly searched information from a regular member. Lets keep this discussion civil.
It has been said since 2004 there have been no cases directly linked to porn films, which often engage in BBFS:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertain...e-los-angeles-over-condom-requirement-120118/
The US porn industry enforces monthly blood tests, and claims to have been successful against STDs:
"AIM Healthcare Foundation has stated that the rate of STDs in adult film actors in production companies that follow the AIM testing protocols is 2.4% , which they state is "considerably lower than the average for sexually active young people with similar demographics." "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_in_the_pornographic_film_industry
"Choosing a partner who tested negative instead of an untested partner reduced the relative risk of HIV infection 47-fold; using condoms. 20-fold; and choosing insertive fellatio rather than insertive anal sex. 13-fold."
"CONCLUSION: Clarifying the magnitude of risk associated with different choices may help people make effective and sustainable changes in behavior."
http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/...g_the_Risk_of_Sexual_HIV_Transmission_.7.aspx
"Porn industry could pull out of LA if condoms required"
"It has been battered in recent years, however, by the recession and the increased popularity of free Internet porn, and Kernes and others say requiring condoms would further erode business.
"They say consumers, particularly those overseas, have made it clear they won't watch films when the actors use condoms, complaining that it is distracting and ruins the fantasy.
"Condoms aren't needed, filmmakers say, because the industry already polices itself. Production companies require that actors be tested for sexually transmitted diseases a minimum of every 30 days when they are working.
"Industry officials say no cases of HIV have been directly linked to porn films since 2004, adding they fear if the industry scatters to areas outside of Los Angeles that testing could fall by the wayside, exposing performers to more risk.
" "If someone is going to catch an STD it's usually out of the business because we are tested so often," said veteran porn actress and producer Tabitha Stevens.
"In her 17 years in the business, Stevens said, she has worked both with and without condoms. Although she prefers to use condoms, acknowledging they do increase safety, she said the choice should be left up to the performers and not mandated by a government agency.
" "If you want to wear them, wear them. If you don't, don't. That's up to the talent to decide. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide," she said.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertain...e-los-angeles-over-condom-requirement-120118/
thats the issue. you judge. lets face it this is an adult hobby where we can all make our own adult decisions. i dont have any qualms with practicing safe sex. im chosing to be open and honest that it has happened to me on more than a few occasions and that all the predescribed notions that it happened between escorts that were desperate to be completely false.
im not here to judge you being safe. your body your choice. its the fact you keep reiterating the risks ad nauseam like we dont already know. so i get the impression and tone from your posts you look down upon ppl who make different choices otherwise you wouldnt feel the need to go over it a million times.
thank you emilioa for making a sound argument. one i agree with.
The reality is that the choices people make in this hobby affect all those who poon as well as the escorts. The trend seems to be toward riskier activities so for those with no tolerance or a very low tolerance for risk, they should not be pooning.
We all know how we can minimize our risks. I try to minimize my risk by the services I seek, the ladies I see and the frequency I engage in this hobby. But if the trend continues in the direction it has been going in, then I would just quit this activity completely.
Debates like this are not completely pointless. There are young guys on here who are just getting into this activity who may not be fully aware of the risk. If threads like these open their eyes and help them to make informed decisions, good for them. But the men who seek BBFS and other riskier activities and the ladies who provide them are just going to keep doing what they have been doing.
We all know how we can minimize our risks. I try to minimize my risk by the services I seek, the ladies I see and the frequency I engage in this hobby. But if the trend continues in the direction it has been going in, then I would just quit this activity completely.
Debates like this are not completely pointless. There are young guys on here who are just getting into this activity who may not be fully aware of the risk. If threads like these open their eyes and help them to make informed decisions, good for them. But the men who seek BBFS and other riskier activities and the ladies who provide them are just going to keep doing what they have been doing.
Wow, quite a debate goin' on here. I opened this thread to ask a question & seek opinions, however, this discussion has gone in a different direction than what I had expected!
An interesting thing to notice is to look at how many SP's advertising on ERS actually comment in their ads about BBFS. Why do you think it would be necessary for an SP advertising to specifically mention this restriction unless they are asked repeatedly?
I would say that the majority of SP's that offer PSE (or "open minded" service) specifically have to say NO to BBFS (list it as a restriction) in their AD's!
This advertising behavoir tells me that there must be a large number of Pooners trying to find SP's that offer BBFS! Also, re-read the first line of my post on page 1!
Disturbing - isn't it!!!
An interesting thing to notice is to look at how many SP's advertising on ERS actually comment in their ads about BBFS. Why do you think it would be necessary for an SP advertising to specifically mention this restriction unless they are asked repeatedly?
I would say that the majority of SP's that offer PSE (or "open minded" service) specifically have to say NO to BBFS (list it as a restriction) in their AD's!
This advertising behavoir tells me that there must be a large number of Pooners trying to find SP's that offer BBFS! Also, re-read the first line of my post on page 1!
Disturbing - isn't it!!!
Last edited:
I would agree that condoms are an excellent means of protection from certain STDs, including HIV.
Still they only reduce the risk of HIV by about 85-90% when used consistently, less when used
inconsistently and more when used correctly every time.
Two couples in a hundred (2%) who use condoms perfectly, that is consistently and correctly,
will still have an average of one pregnancy per year, when condoms are their only means of
birth control. Considering that a female is not fertile most days of the month, that might give
an idea of how many exposures to sperm (in cum & precum) would be needed for a pregnancy.
If that fluid is STI infected, you can imagine the possible consequences. STI's, unlike pregnancy,
do not have to wait for a certain time of the month & SP's probably have way more sex than
couples do.
That suggests how important other means of safe sex are, such as STD testing.
"If you're sexually active, particularly with multiple partners, you've probably heard the following advice many times: Use protection and make sure you get tested. This is important because people can have a sexually transmitted disease (STD) without knowing it. In many cases, no signs or symptoms occur."
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/std-testing/ID00047
- Status
