What's that smell?

[+ deej]

RE: Get what you ask for

 

Attitudes like yours are exactly what's causing the rapid spread of HIV in the gay community right now.

 

No need to worry about aborting you. It appears you'll take care of that yourself. Sadly, you appear perfectly willing to take down as many others as possible in the process. ;(

[boypayer]

>

>Wow. So everyone with HIV is a loser and has "little brains"

>and should stay away from you?

 

Well...to a degree, yes. Is that that not MY choice? Are your claiming "victim status" and special privilege for diseased people? You were the first to use the word "loser", not me. I advocate personal responsibility. If foolish actions by a person result in costs, other people and taxpayers should not be forced to pay for them in ANY way. There STILL ain't no free lunch, friend. Who pays is the really important question.

[LurkerSpeaks]

RE: Get what you ask for

 

QUICK... someone call Montreal.. Find Cedrik who used to dance at Taboo, tell him to beware... his stalker is a danger to society...

 

hahahha

[Guest Tristan]

Another consideration which I don't think anyone mentioned is the risk of getting Hepatitis A or B. Have you been vaccinated against both of these? Hep A is transmitted through the handling of fecal matter. That's how customers contract it in restaurants - from employees who didn't wash their hands. Hep B is sexually transmitted. Oral-anal sex would be the greatest risk. In any case, you may want to ask a doctor about this, or go to a clinic.

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Get what you ask for

 

>I don't know if it would be appropriate to name him. He's not

>a "professional" escort. He's a gay.com local south-east

>Michigan escort/hooker.

 

Gee, that would make it appropriate in my book, just in case some of us holy, infallible people ever get there.

 

>

And the moral of the story, in case safe sex isn't it, always carry baby wipes.

[twinkboylover28]

RE: Get what you ask for

 

>Attitudes like yours are exactly what's causing the rapid

>spread of HIV in the gay community right now.

>

>No need to worry about aborting you. It appears you'll take

>care of that yourself. Sadly, you appear perfectly willing to

>take down as many others as possible in the process. ;(

 

 

 

 

What attitude would that be?

[+ Tom Isern]

Okay, boys. For all of you who are so busy jumping all over twinkboylover28, I have a question: How many of you use a condom when performing oral sex on your partners?

 

According to a friend who has dedicated his professional life at very high levels to AIDS research and prevention, the risk/rate of infection for the following “unsafe” activities is (if I remember correctly) as follows:

 

GIVING oral sex without condom to an HIV+ partner: .04%

FUCKING raw as a top with an HIV+ partner: .06%

 

The difference is 2 percentage points! If you give oral sex without a condom, you have no business jumping all over twinkboylover28. You are virtually as “responsible” or “irresponsible” for the spread of HIV as he is.

 

My friend believes that the absolutist, universal, one-size-fits-all approach to HIV prevention—always use a condom when having anal sex—is deceptive and hasn’t worked.

 

He also believes that a new ethic is needed, one that talks about risks in an honest and non-inflammatory way because vaccines and microbicides are NOT on the horizon.

 

Current HIV-prevention discourse pretends that people aren’t smart enough to evaluate risks in level-headed and rational ways. From the posts on this site, perhaps they are right.

 

Twinkboylover28 had a horrible experience. Can we discuss this incident frankly and without the heavy-handed moralism and flame throwing?

[twinkboylover28]

>>

>>If foolish

>actions by a person result in costs, other people and

>taxpayers should not be forced to pay for them in ANY way.

>There STILL ain't no free lunch, friend. Who pays is the

>really important question.

 

 

 

Right. America is the richest country in the world; however, let THEM suffer if they can't pay.

 

Unemployed and dying of cancer? No morphine for you! Too expensive. Suffer in agony you poor bastards!

[twinkboylover28]

RE: Get what you ask for

 

>QUICK... someone call Montreal.. Find Cedrik who used to

>dance at Taboo, tell him to beware... his stalker is a danger

>to society...

>

>hahahha

 

 

 

LMAO

[Guest icon513]

Actually, the difference is only 2/100 of one percentage point. Right?

[twinkboylover28]

>Another consideration which I don't think anyone mentioned is

>the risk of getting Hepatitis A or B. Have you been vaccinated

>against both of these? Hep A is transmitted through the

>handling of fecal matter. That's how customers contract it in

>restaurants - from employees who didn't wash their hands. Hep

>B is sexually transmitted. Oral-anal sex would be the greatest

>risk. In any case, you may want to ask a doctor about this, or

>go to a clinic.

 

 

 

Thank you for your constructive comments!

 

Yes I've been vaccinated for Hep A and B

[twinkboylover28]

RE: Get what you ask for

 

>And the moral of the story, in case safe sex isn't it, always

>carry baby wipes.

 

 

LOL ..and plenty of liquid anti-bacterial soap.

[twinkboylover28]

Thank you Tom Isern for your profound and constructive comments.

[Steven_Draker]

Steven Draker recommends safer sex

 

I think that twinkboylover is only looking for an excuse here for his irresponsible behavior. I hope also that he learns a lesson out of it. I also think that using a condom depending on or after measuring the risk you're taking is wrong. You need to use a condom anytime as a top or as a bottom.

 

Steven Draker ~

http://www.hotsexystud.com/uk

[twinkboylover28]

RE: Steven Draker recommends safer sex

 

How about for sucking cock? And please look into your crystal ball and let me know what excuses I'm looking for?

[Steven_Draker]

Steven Draker recommends safer sex

 

>According to a friend who has dedicated his professional life

>at very high levels to AIDS research and prevention, the

>risk/rate of infection for the following “unsafe” activities

>is (if I remember correctly) as follows:

>

>GIVING oral sex without condom to an HIV+ partner: .04%

>FUCKING raw as a top with an HIV+ partner: .06%

 

Tom, I am unaware of these statistics, and if they concern circumcised or uncircumcised individuals. This kind of statistics may (I repeat may) encourage people to engage in unsafe activities. Don't take any chance. Let me remind that there are many STDs and a condom should be used each time when anal sex is involved. I hate to sound like a school teacher, but you know better safe than sorry.

 

Steven Draker ~

http://www.hotsexystud.com/uk

[Boston Guy]

>According to a friend who has dedicated his professional life

>at very high levels to AIDS research and prevention, the

>risk/rate of infection for the following “unsafe” activities

>is (if I remember correctly) as follows:

>

>GIVING oral sex without condom to an HIV+ partner: .04%

>FUCKING raw as a top with an HIV+ partner: .06%

>

>The difference is 2 percentage points! If you give oral sex

>without a condom, you have no business jumping all over

>twinkboylover28. You are virtually as “responsible” or

>“irresponsible” for the spread of HIV as he is.

>

 

Tom,

 

I appreciate your attempt to provide good information. Further, what you post here usually seems good and accurate to me. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the statistics you posted, quoted above, are accurate. Nor do I think that it's really a good idea to be quoting unnamed "friends" on so serious a subject.

 

Your friend is correct, though, when he states that the message of using condoms 100% of the time has not worked. Witness the original poster in this thread. When I started reading this thread, I immediately thought it was a joke where someone was trying to post something that would end up with a warning about AIDS risks. When I realized he was describing a real encounter, I was bit appalled.

 

You ask if we can "discuss this incident frankly and without the heavy-handed moralism and flame throwing?" That would be good, I guess. However, I believe that this even-handed approach has sometimes given people a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card in terms of moral decision making. If the original poster had carried a loaded pistol that contained one bullet and started firing it at his partner, we would all (I think) condemn this activity. Yet we are hearing some calls for quiet discussion in the face of another very real risk to his and his partner's health -- a risk that he inflicted on both of them just as surely as if he had pulled the trigger of a loaded pistol.

 

He is concerned for his own well-being. That's understandable. But I'd like to kindly suggest that he should be feeling significant concern for the health of his partner as well. How does he know that he himself is not HIV+? How often does he engage in unsafe activities? When was the last time he was tested? I don't really care about the answer to these questions in the direct case but I think it's important for people to understand that they themselves pose a real risk to their partners when they engage in unsafe sex.

 

Further, while many people -- including some experts -- like to minize the different risks in various activities, feeling that a better message is to simply "be safe 100% of the time", every serious study has shown a very significant difference between the risk associated with unprotected anal intercourse and oral intercourse between same-sex male couples. I'd rather see people have the best information and then be expected to act responsibly with that information.

 

See the following link for some up-to-date information: http://www.avert.org/orlsx.htm You will note that the section on oral sex begins with "The risk of HIV transmission from an infected partner through oral sex is much smaller than the risk of HIV transmission from anal or vaginal sex."

 

Finally, I guess, there is the issue of being turned off and frightened by the sight of shit on one's dick. The message here is that shit is more dangerous somehow that what might otherwise be lingering inside someone... sort of like it's ok if you fuck someone without a condemn so long as you avoid the brown stuff. This betrays a lack of understanding of how STD's and other diseases are transmitted. It seems as if the OP believes that as long as the other person is somehow "clean" inside then things will be ok. While that might be a nice theory, it doesn't really have anything to do with real health risks.

 

Surfaces that look perfectly clean can be loaded with microbes. Doorknobs usually look clean but are usually teaming with all kinds of germs. Similarly, body tissues that look clean are almost certainly hosting a complex microbial environment. Many guys believe that rimming someone is ok so long as it "looks clean" down there. But rimming is, in fact, an activity associated with a high risk of transmission for certain diseases. Anyone who thinks that someone who looks clean is disease free really needs to do himself a favor and read up on the real health risks associated with various forms of sexual activity. Otherwise, they are playing a real game of Russian Roulette with their own health and, quite possibly, that of their partners.

 

BG

[+ Lucky]

RE: Twinkboy's Adventures

 

Another fascinating story from twinkboylover. It reminded me of a post he made last year (May 13) where he recounted another unsafe encounter he had had:

 

"Finally on my last night in montreal, wednesday, i was walking to taboo and this skinny mexican teen approached me. his teeth were all screwed up but he was kinda cute in a hustler, street-kid kind of way; however, I normally like white guys.

 

I told this mexican hustler "no thank you" but he continued to stalk me for the next 5 minutes. Finally he convinced me he wasnt police. He never brought the issue of money up and he told me he was 18, etc

 

I took him to my hotel, the hyatt, on the subway. I was just planning on having him give me a hand job since he is a street hustler!! Im mega paranoid about cathcing STD's.

 

Before I knew it he was giving me head. I came in his mouth in less than 1 minute. I gave the kid $40 and his response to me was: "Do youu have $2.50 for the subway because i was planning on buying something (ie- DRUGS!).

 

I allowed a drug-addicted, skinny, mexican, homeless, teenage street hustler to perform unprotected oral sex on me! The kid also smelled like he hadnt taken a shower in days.

 

I swear I will never get drunk again cruisng for hustlers. In fact, I wil never cruise for hustlers again atfer this experience. But it's all my fault/responsibility.

 

I also found it weird that he asked to drink a glass of water before he gave me head. ANYWAYZ, IM SO PARANOID NOW THAT IM GOING TO GET GENITAL HERPES THAT IT KINDA PUTS A DOWNER ON MY ENTIRE TRIP.

 

I called the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and they informed me that the waiting period for genital herpes is 30 days. If i dont have signs of genital herpes outbreak in 30 days then its a pretty good likelihood that I didnt get infected.

 

Now I have to analyze my penis closely for the next 30 days. Im never getting drunk again patroling for hustlers. Bad idea! If i make it out of this STD free I will be so happy."

[+ glutes]

RE: Twinkboy's Mis-Adventures

 

Maybe we should call these "T.B. Lovers Excellent Misadventures".

[OneFinger]

RE: See What Happens When...

 

...EscortSpeak closes?? :+

 

Seriously, however, TBL's experience is very similar to some of my own back in the '70's. Yes, shit can happen during anal intercourse and you can't always predict (or prevent) when a surprise sneaks out.

 

I'm kind of disappointed that some of the positive aspects of this post have been ignored. Specifically:

[ol]

TBL has acknowledged that a "raincoat" should have been used.

 

TBL is regularly tested and monitors his HIV status. (That's more responsible than a lot of other people who don't want to know.)

 

We've again been warned what can happen when we hire someone that's not reviewed on this board.

[/ol]

Shit happens, mistakes are made, and we all need to be more careful when we play. Let's consider this thread a good example of "Lessons Learned".

 

-------------

"We need to have more respect for each other. Things have just gone really crazy, out of control. ... We're on a very weird kind of cycle." Stevie Wonder

[RockHard]

What's that smell? Guilt, low self-esteem? Probably.

 

"Thanks for the personal attack."

 

Maybe I'm blind, but I didn't see anyone's name included in my "Too many losers, too much time" post. Is it not possible that the shit-burstin' escort could have been the reason for my comment?

 

Anyone who gets defensive over a comment when no one's name was never mentioned gets defensive for a reason. I have no control over the reason and nor do I have any control over how a man feels about himself.

 

Therapy anyone?

[+ Tom Isern]

RE: Steven Draker recommends safer sex

 

Steven,

 

You have raised two concerns that aren't really valid.

 

First, STDs are passed as easily through oral sex as they are through anal. Hepatitis is passed as simply as being in contact with another person, without any oral or anal activity. So using condoms for anal sex doesn't protect one against these diseases.

 

Second, I understand how it can seem scary to let each person assess risk for him/herself, but that is, frankly, the truth of the situation. The GMHC website even encourages individual risk management decisions. My doctor, for instance, won't give or receive blowjobs without a condom. But most gay guys I know think that oral sex is completely risk free. It's not. HIV CAN be transmitted through oral sex, though the risk is low. It is also a fact that anal sex is more risky for the bottom, with or without condom.

 

We all make decisions about where our risk tolerance lies the minute we crawl into bed with someone. The only 100% safe sexual behavior is abstinence--that is the hard truth.

 

Honest and frank discussion is always better than hype and moral condemnation.

[+ Tom Isern]

BG,

 

Point well taken: "unnamed" sources are not the most authoritative. I did not cite my source because I have not asked his permission to do so. I will, since I started us down this line of discussion, research the statistics and get back to you.

 

What I find interesting about current HIV discourse--and it shows up in your thoughtful response--is that there is little acknowledgement that the risks are different for anal topping as opposed to bottoming. I've personally known several HIV-negative boyfriends who have topped their positive partners unprotected for years and remained negative.

 

Also, on another issue that's in play here, there is preliminary data from research in Africa (a definitive study is due shortly) that suggests there is a huge difference in HIV transmission related to circumcision. Apparently, most of the cells susceptible to HIV are removed when one is circumcised.

[Guest Merlin]

Tom, a number of studies have shown that there is a much higher risk for uncircumcised males than those who are cut. So much so that one of the proposals is to encourage or require circumcision in Africa. But, think about it. It cannot make much difference if the bottom is cut or uncut. The difference is large when the top is uncut and does not use a condom. The stats which your "friend" pulled out of the sky are misleading and dangerous.

[Steven_Draker]

RE: Steven Draker recommends safer sex

 

>First, STDs are passed as easily through oral sex as they are

>through anal. Hepatitis is passed as simply as being in

>contact with another person, without any oral or anal

>activity. So using condoms for anal sex doesn't protect one

>against these diseases.

 

Thank you, Tom, I'm fully aware of these risks. Rereading your statistics you minimize the risk to the point that it looks like you top without a condom. Please confirm that I'm wrong.

 

>Honest and frank discussion is always better than hype and moral condemnation.

 

You're right. Unfortunately, my trust in honesty died the day a barebacking escort came on this very board to preach for safe sex. Hypocrisy turns me off.

 

>I understand how it can seem scary to let each person assess

>risk for him/herself, but that is, frankly, the truth of the situation.

 

You're right again - I have to quit to worry about the health of others and spreading a disease.

 

Steven Draker ~

http://www.hotsexystud.com/uk

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/steven_draker_brussels.html