Escort HIV status

[Steven_Draker]

> For that reason I don't ask

 

I don't ask either: that way I don't give the opportunity to someone to lie. Just assume that everyone is positive and act accordingly.

 

Steven Draker ~

http://www.hotsexystud.com/uk

[TruthBTold]

This is one of those days when I get on my knees and thank whichever deity I choose to believe in for that day for this board and the guys who make comments on it. I was going to schedule an appointment with Santoro but chose not to based on this topic. I know, I know . . . no one knows if it is even true. But I have also not seen Santoro come here, refuting it to high heaven. Maybe he has, and I have just missed it. Thanks again to everyone that takes part in these small, but important, attempts to share some wisdom.

[+ Lucky]

RE: God Works Miracle

 

Well, God has just worked another miracle. Isn't it wondrous! Now you aren't going to have sex with a hot guy because second-hand info told you something that you didn't like, and you would rather rely on that than your own good judgment in having sex as safely as possible with all comers, as it were. God works in strange and wondrous ways! But, since He has reached out and saved you today, be sure to buy a lottery ticket!

[Steven_Draker]

RE: God Works Miracle

 

>Well, God has just worked another miracle. Isn't it wondrous!

>Now you aren't going to have sex with a hot guy because

>second-hand info told you something that you didn't like, and

>you would rather rely on that than your own good judgment in

>having sex as safely as possible with all comers, as it were.

>God works in strange and wondrous ways! But, since He has

>reached out and saved you today, be sure to buy a lottery

>ticket!

 

Lucky,

I don't always agree with you, but I must say that here you're spot-on !

Thank you for posting.

 

Steven Draker ~

http://www.hotsexystud.com

[+ purplekow]

RE: God Works Miracle

 

>

>Now you aren't going to have sex with a hot guy because

>second-hand info told you something that you didn't like, and

>you would rather rely on that than your own good judgment in

>having sex as safely as possible with all comers, as it were.

 

 

Just because information is second hand doesn't mean it is false.

While it is safest to assume that each time one has sex one should take the same precautions, the fact is that accidents happen all the time despie precautions. So, if one has a choice, which clients do, why choose the one with the controversy? If an accident occurs with someone about whom there was no speculation, then the results may be ucky or unfortunate but within the known baseline risk. If an accident occurs with someone about whom there was speculation and the speculation turns out to be true, then one must live and die with that second guess. There is no upside to choosing an escort about whom HIV status has been questioned, as far as risk goes.

[+ Lucky]

RE: God Works Miracle

 

Purple, I expect that you probably drive a Volvo, and that's fine with me. But adopting your cautious attitude about sex would deprive people of many a joyful encounter that could easily be done at no risk. You are excluding the opportunity to meet some very interesting people because of that caution, and, of course, that's your choice. But quite simply, any intelligent person knows how to avoid HIV infection. Trusting someone who claims they are negative without requiring their medical records isn't really much safer than going with someone who tells you right upfront that he is HIV positive.

[+ deej]

RE: God Works Miracle

 

>If an accident occurs with someone about whom there was no speculation,

 

Then the results are EXACTLY THE SAME as they would be with anyone else.

 

You may have the perception that the results would be different, and that's all it really is. It's a perception. If you find comfort in that, fine, but know that there is no safety whatsoever in your perception. (There's actually some level of danger in the assumption.)

 

Suppose the guy that has no rumor about him turns out poz. Does that make the accident somehow less "eventful"? No. It makes it EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

 

So all you're really doing is turning away potentially fun situations based on a completely false sense of safety.

[+ Lucky]

RE: God Works Miracle

 

God did indeed work a miracle today. I agreed with both deej and Rock Hard, and on the same day! Where do I get baptized? (Hopefully, in a golden shower...)

[+ deej]

RE: God Works Miracle

 

I almost included a note reminding folks to mark their calendars. Haley's comet can't be far behind.

[seaboy4hire]

Here is an example and you can take it or leave it as far as I'm concerned. Say Eric gets tested on 1/2/07. It normally takes at the most 2 weeks to get the results back. So on 1/16/07 the results come back negative. WOW he thinks I am negative and he tells everyone he comes into sexual contact with that he is negative. BUT little does he know or any of his sexual partners that during that two week waiting period with one of his tricks there they were using a faulty condom. And ya know what? Eric is actually on the road to becoming positive. I know might sound extreme but stuff like this does happen. I don't really believe in the term "safer" sex. It's just the same stuff just repackaged. If you really want "safer" sex keep your cock zipped up and don't have sex at all. That is really the only form of "safer" sex. Until then if someone tells ya they are negative don't take it as gospel. *Steps off of soap box*

 

Hugs,

Greg

seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com New page for reveiws http://www.daddysreviews.com/newest.php?who=greg_seattle

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3307/dsc05257be3.jpg[/img][/url]

I get 90 mpg! You?

CHICAGO FEBRUARY 22-25

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

I find this thread interesting, incredibly disturbing, but interesting all the same.

 

When i took on this very same issue regarding an escort who was telling his clientele he was negative, then turns around and admits to being positive after the cash transaction, i surely didn't get this kind of common-sense reaction.

 

People were actually idiotic enough to SUPPORT the behavior.

 

What's more: This was documented insanity within a submitted review and still there were some here on the MC who deemed it an 'understandable mistake.' Isn't it funny what a cute face will forgive these days?

 

It's good to see people changing their tune and realizing that an escort should be held accountable for his sexual indiscretions. This is a business which involves not only my life, but the lives of many others who i see. It's my RESPONSIBILITY to not only get regularly tested, but to also play safely and disclose any health-related issues to my guys if it might adversely affect them.

 

It's been mentioned already, but the smartest route you can take it to simply assume that everyone you're having sex with is positive. That's still not to say or discount that fact that a sex-worker should always realize they are responsible for more than just themselves.

 

Lying about something so life-changing is a selfish and cowardly thing to do. It's sure as shit not a 'understandable mistake.'

 

 

 

BN

[+ Lucky]

Ben, I told you not to bring that Pocket PC to the Grammies. It could only get you in trouble, I said. Sure enough, it wasn't enough to be backstage with Justin and chatting up Christina. You had to go and post something here. Well, okay, but just for that I will not introduce you to Cee-Lo Green. Now there's a mouth!

 

Are you going to Liza's after the show?

[+ purplekow]

RE: God Works Miracle

 

>>If an accident occurs with someone about whom there was no

>speculation,

>

>Then the results are EXACTLY THE SAME as they would be with

>anyone else.

>

>You may have the perception that the results would be

>different, and that's all it really is. It's a perception. If

>you find comfort in that, fine, but know that there is no

>safety whatsoever in your perception. (There's actually some

>level of danger in the assumption.)

>

>Suppose the guy that has no rumor about him turns out poz.

>Does that make the accident somehow less "eventful"? No. It

>makes it EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

>

>So all you're really doing is turning away potentially fun

>situations based on a completely false sense of safety.

 

 

The results may be the same, living with the outcome might not be.

If there is no speculation, one assumes the usual risk. If there is speculation, sometimes that speculation is warranted and IMO heed should be paid to the possible increased risk. IMO if you take 100 people about whom there is open discussion of their being positive and 100 people about whom there is no open discussion, there will be more positive people in the first group. No scientific basis to back it up. No double blinded study. This is not a fact, it is an opinion and since I am the one hiring, and it is my opinion, it is one that I can choose to factor in or not. I factor it in. You may choose not to do so. I think that should I become positive from someone I knew to be positive or about whom there was credible information to believe was positive, that I would have a harder time dealing with the entire issue than if I felt I had taken an additional step of skipping the person about whom there is speculation. Fortunately for the people who are being falsely outed on this issue, there are those who choose to wait for definitive proof. As for me, I don't feel I am depriving myself by skipping over one hot man and choosing another whether it be due to speculation of HIV status, dick size, hair color, age, body type or any one of many factors which go into making a hiring decision. Some factors are deal breakers, others are not, for me this type of speculation is a deal breaker.