Escorts and Clients into death-chasing sex.

[+ honcho]

Playing Devil's Advocate . . .

 

Let me preface my diatribe here by saying:

 

1.) I *A*L*W*A*Y*S* use a condom when fucking someone else's butt, and

2.) I am still HIV negative

3.) even before AIDS I never got fucked due to the worlds worst case of hemarrhoids.

 

I repond to HOTSTUDnyRYAN thusly:

 

about half the men I know in San Francisco are HIV positive. (not just escorts).

Even a(n HIV negative) M.D. friend of mine says that HIV is no longer necessarily a death sentence.

 

It has been explained to me:

A number of HIV - positive men are willing to get fucked by other HIV - positive men without condoms because they see it as a quality of life issue; they are believe the benefit of their increased enjoyment of what time they have left outweighs the risk of getting re-infected with a drug resistant strain.

 

The risk of becoming infected by HIV by fucking (being the top) is much smaller than the risk of getting infected by being fucked, (although riskier than by engaging in oral sex).

 

I know of at least one former SF Police officer (now living in LA and reportedly still HIV negative), who fucks top only, and regards condoms as being the bottoms' option.

 

So, the SF AIDS foundation and "STOP AIDS" seem to have shifted its focus to persuadingHIV negative bottoms to have their partners use condoms.

 

So, if the guys calling you asking if you barebacked were already HIV positive (and knew it) they weren't necessarily being suicidal, and didn't feel they would have been placing you at undo risk.

 

Nonetheless, I'll repeat what I said at the top:

 

I *A*L*W*A*Y*S* use a condom when fucking butt, and I"m glad you do also.

[Guest Mikel]

The inquiry might actually be to ascertain if you practice "raw" sex to decline you if you answer affirmatively. The perspective client might be testing your waters not because he wants to engage in raw sex but rather because if you do, he'll look else where. His inquiry may sound like he is interested in engaging in raw sex when really all he wants to do is avoid you if you admit otherwise.

 

I'm ceratin most of your inquiries are precisely because the client wants raw sex. But I have inquired on occassion ONLY because I would avoid the escort if his response was yes.

[AaronScottDC]

>I'm ceratin most of your inquiries are precisely because the

>client wants raw sex. But I have inquired on occassion ONLY

>because I would avoid the escort if his response was yes.

 

You may very well be correct in assuming that some clients might inquire about barebacking with a particular escort so that they can avoid the escort if they say yes. Of course, just like Ryan said, some escorts won't even reply to a client who inquires about such activities. I know I am not likely to accept a client who has asked about barebacking. Even if they say they will agree to the use of a condom, I don't really want to take the chance that they may try to go without it if they somehow get the chance. Or, even worse, try to do so by force.

 

So, it may not be a wise tactic to pretend to be interested in barebacking with an escort if you actually want to meet them.

 

Aaron Scott DC

http://www.erados.com/AaronScottDC

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

[Rick Munroe]

>I am asked once or twice a week by people calling me on the

>phone or emailing me if I am into "raw" sex...

 

Ryan, I wonder if there's something (or something missing) in your ad text or photos that attracts this type of client. I wonder because, in the 4 years that Derek and I have been escorting, we have probably been asked that question only a couple of times. We never have unsafe sex and we say so in our ads. Maybe it's as simple as your saying you absolutely do not engage in this type of activity to put an end to the constant questioning.

[OneFinger]

>But anyway, I think about half the escorts I know are HIV positive.

>

>Is this common knowledge, or shocking to everyone?

 

Can anyone else verify this "statistic"? I certainly know that escorting is definitely a high risk behavior. But 50% of the escorts are HIV positive?!?

 

Do other escorts agree with this estimate? Have there been any studies done on the incidence of escorts transmitting HIV to their clients?

 

I'm not trying to create a controversy. But, yes, I'd be shocked if the rate was that high. I've never been with an escort who didn't insist on using a raincoat during fucking. I seriously doubt that 50% of the escorts I've hired have been HIV+.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Escorts and Clients into death

 

Raincoats are not very effective against AIDS, but could prevent you from catching a cold.

[+ deej]

>I'm not trying to create a controversy. But, yes, I'd be

>shocked if the rate was that high. I've never been with an

>escort who didn't insist on using a raincoat during fucking. I

>seriously doubt that 50% of the escorts I've hired have been

>HIV+.

 

He said 50% of the escorts THAT HE KNOWS. You may know a different set of escorts, and probably fewer than he knows. But you'll never know for sure because there are no outward symptoms of being HIV+. (Note I am separating HIV+ from PWA's.)

 

I don't know of any studies. Perhaps you'll find something at hookonline.org.

 

The problem with surveying this particular population is deciding who qualifies. Is a kid that sold it once on Craig's list counted the same way as a drug-riddled streetwalker on Santa Monica Blvd? Where do our professional escorts hanging here fall on that scale? Is someone advertising on barebackcentral.com (if it still exists) counted the same as escorts who clearly state SAFE ONLY and practice what they preach? Do they count in the statistics if they did it but won't own up to it? And how the hell do you count them?

 

There are no absolutes.

 

A number of 50%, considering the global pool of sex workers, wouldn't surprise me at all. If anything, it's probably low. x(

[Guest Gringo]

You know, sometimes people ridicule me for prefering part time amateur street action. But compared with full time commercial sex workers, not that I'm putting that down in any way, I believe the infection rate among my encounters would probably be considerably lower. Different strokes for different folks. We all make choices.

[+ deej]

Yup. Exactly.

 

We all make choices and we can never be certain of the outcome.

[Guest Utopia]

I wrote about this in another thread a long time ago so I will repeat it.

 

I hire about 2 escorts per month. Nearly all are in Califronia or Nevada. Once in a blue moon it will be someone in Florida.

 

Each time I am about to hire an escort I send my typical introduction email with the usual information and questions. Within a week of sending that email under a different alias I send a second email to the same escort specifically requesting a bareback session.

 

I have saved every response from both emails and can say the breakdown at first surprised me now I am just numb to it.

 

Of 31 initial emails (meaning my first choice for an escort)sent in 2003 the following was the response to my alias emails:

 

19 agreed to bareback without question or condition.

4 agreed to bareback with the condition of a higher fee.

5 refused to bareback.

3 no response to my barebacking request.

 

Naturally the 5 who refused the bareback session I hired.

 

I sent a email out to my second choice escort to cover the ones who I would not hire due to their barebacking. A total of 14 second choices went out and the response to my bareback email is as follows:

 

6 agreed to bareback without question or condition.

7 refused to bareback.

1 no response to my barebacking request.

 

Therefore, it took quite a few attempts for me last year to find an escort who didn't bareback. I know that isn't a guarantee of anything though I also know it tells me the escort is concerned about his health and chances are less that if I use common safe sex practices my chances of being infected will be less than if I hired a bareback escort and used safe sex practices.

 

As for my personal feelings about barebacking, I don't caree if someone else is into it or not. That is their choice and I respect their choice. I just don't want to be a part of it.

[Guest HOTnySTUDRYAN]

Wow, that's great stuff Utopia. However, a statistician would warn you, as Deej pointed out in an earlier post about what I had said, that your sample is non-random, non-representative, and biased.

 

Nonetheless, given my own non-random, non-representative and bias sample, I'm not in the least surpised by your numbers...

 

As for me, VERY VERY knowledgable regarding the epidemiology and etiology of various STDs, I'm not really worried about HIV per say, as much as I'm worried about the easy-to-transmit conditions strongly associated with an HIV diagnosis: Hepatitis, Herpes, Gonorrhea, HPV, etc. These things are EASY to transmit and condoms do NOTHING to protect you, at least according to the good science out there.

 

The SF police officer is deluded if he thinks fucking HIV-diagnosed bottoms raw makes any sense health-wise. Your Cock is being bathed in a soup of feces, often-times blood, foreign proteins, and whatever easy-to-transmit microbes your partner is carrying. Safer than being a bottom? Bullshit...Bullshit...Bullshit...

 

Risk of HIV transmission in any sex act? Extremely minimal...otherwise HIV would be epidemic in this country. News flash: it isn't, the estimated prevalence levels static at .04% percent for the entire AIDS epidemic.

 

Risk of transmission for any other STD, condom or not, if the person carries them? VERY HIGH.

 

So the key for me is assessing a potential partner's likelihood of being STD infested, not HIV diagnosed per se...If they are into hard-drugs, cock-rings, extreme forms of sex, and a few other factors I listen for, I stay away...These factors are not in-and-of-themselves indicative of being an STD carrier, but taken together they are certainly correlated with carrying various STDS, some of them strongly...

 

It is, in comparison, highly unlikely that the radiologist client I just saw tonight, who just got out of a 10 year relationship, has never done drugs, just likes to suck a guy off, and hasn't seen anyone for months...it is VERY unlikely, given his profile, he is a risk to me for any kind of STD.

 

Capeche? Interesting discussion. - RYAN

 

:-)

[Guest HOTnySTUDRYAN]

Interesting enough, just got yet another email request for me to bareback -- and he isn't testing me to see if I'll do it...And this person clearly found me from this web-site. Sheesh. - RYAN

[N.N.]

Ryan, where did you get the idea that condoms do NOTHING (you'd capitalized the word for emphasis) to reduce likelihood of transmission of hepatitis or gonorrhea?

[+ Cock Eyed Optimist]

>, I am

>curious whether you were asking the 31 to top or bottom.

 

I am too. That data is important.

[Guest HOTnySTUDRYAN]

>Ryan, where did you get the idea that condoms do NOTHING

>(you'd capitalized the word for emphasis) to reduce likelihood

>of transmission of hepatitis or gonorrhea?

 

In science, one does not prove a negative -- you can't do that logically. One is only able to prove a positive assertion, thus the question must be returned, where is your science that it DOES reduce the transmission?

 

Anyway, I'll answer you this way:

 

I got gonorrhea, so did my boyfriend at the same time when we got it, long time ago...We hadn't engaged in anything requiring condoms with the person who gave it to us...well unless you'd use condoms for masturbation and very brief oral, in which case maybe condoms would help. But you see this and other STDs, including Hepatitis A and supposedly C...and Herpes, and many others...and HPV -- which causes genital warts and perhaps cancer later in life, do not require transmission of body fluids...just skin to skin contact...or skin to condom to skin contact...or whatever...

 

Bottom line? Assessing the epidemiological risk of someone, in addition to condom use, is the way to go. Pretending that condoms protect you from these common STDs is not rational.

 

RYAN

[Guest Utopia]

>>, I am

>>curious whether you were asking the 31 to top or bottom.

>

>I am too. That data is important.

 

Good question. When I send my bareback emails I tell the escort I'm a versatile top. That while I want to top them raw I wouldn't mind getting fucked raw either.

[Guest HOTnySTUDRYAN]

>

>I got gonorrhea, so did my boyfriend at the same time when we

>got it, long time ago...

 

I felt the need to clarify, for those of you who don't know, that this occurred many years ago on a planet far, far away. And gonorrhea is easily curable at this point in the microbe's evolution. I am STD-free, and as you can gauge from my posts, I value my health quite a lot. Ciao for now. - RYAN

[N.N.]

>> Ryan, where did you get the idea that condoms do NOTHING

>> (you'd capitalized the word for emphasis) to reduce likelihood

>> of transmission of hepatitis or gonorrhea?

>

>In science, one does not prove a negative -- you can't do that

>logically. One is only able to prove a positive assertion,

>thus the question must be returned, where is your science that

>it DOES reduce the transmission?

 

Whoa. You made the claim, not me; you said "condoms do NOTHING

to protect you, at least according to the good science out there."

I asked where you got the idea--and you want to throw a question

back at me, when I made no claim one way or the other?

 

 

 

>Bottom line? Assessing the epidemiological risk of someone, in

>addition to condom use, is the way to go. Pretending that

>condoms protect you from these common STDs is not rational.

 

So are you backing away from your original statement, the

one you haven't supported, the one with NOTHING in all caps?

 

 

 

Even though I never made any claim, you asked me where

the science was that condoms reduce transmission.

One summary of studies available on the web at

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

is skeptical about the effectiveness of condoms against

some of the diseases you mentioned, but about gonorrhea it said

 

"The panel deemed, however, that the collective strengths

of these studies demonstrated that correct and consistent

condom use would reduce the risk of gonorrhea for men." (p.16).

 

I'm not an expert, and I've made no claim one way or the other.

I'm just passing on some info that you could have easily found

on the web if you took a few minutes to look.

[Guest HOTnySTUDRYAN]

I will never engage anyone with a combative tone, as you are taking in your post. So I will just say I'm aware of that report, read it a long time ago.

 

More importantly, I read the basic science straight from the science journals. Panels of experts don't impress me.

 

I wasn't attacking you at all.

 

Have a great day.

 

- RYAN

[N.N.]

>More importantly, I read the basic science straight from the

>science journals. Panels of experts don't impress me.

 

But when asked to justify your assertion, you didn't see

fit to make a reference to any of these journals you read.

 

 

>I wasn't attacking you at all.

 

No, you're just avoiding a request to justify your claim.

[guyinsf]

Unprotected oral sex certainly carries a significant risk of transmitting gonorrhea, so maybe it was the "brief oral" that caused the infections. ("Brief oral" sort of reminds me of "a little pregnant." )

 

>I got gonorrhea, so did my boyfriend at the same time when we

>got it, long time ago...We hadn't engaged in anything

>requiring condoms with the person who gave it to us...well

>unless you'd use condoms for masturbation and very brief oral,

>in which case maybe condoms would help. But you see this and

>other STDs, including Hepatitis A and supposedly C...and

>Herpes, and many others...and HPV -- which causes genital

>warts and perhaps cancer later in life, do not require

>transmission of body fluids...just skin to skin contact...or

>skin to condom to skin contact...or whatever...

>

>Bottom line? Assessing the epidemiological risk of someone, in

>addition to condom use, is the way to go. Pretending that

>condoms protect you from these common STDs is not rational.

>

>RYAN

[woodlawn]

>I will never engage anyone with a combative tone, as you are

>taking in your post. So I will just say I'm aware of that

>report, read it a long time ago.

 

And does that mean you disagree with its conclusions? If so, why?

 

>More importantly, I read the basic science straight from the

>science journals. Panels of experts don't impress me.

 

How do you think science journals decide which articles to publish? They have all articles submitted to them reviewed by panels of experts.

 

I'm curious to know what basis you have for saying condoms do nothing to protect against STDs other than that you and your boyfriend had a problem after some activities that did not involve condoms. I really do not see a logical connection between one statement and the other.

[Guest Ant415]

RE: Escorts and Clients into death

 

In grammar school my mother made us wear yellow raincoats on days of inclement weather. Whilst it was practical outerwear, it was a total fashion faux-pas for a fifth grader.

[HotDad]

I've had escorts insist that they always play safe, and indeed they did with me. Yet, subsequent observation finds them soliciting raw sex (as top, in one case, bottom in the other) as a non-commercial activity.

 

Interesting that at least one professes, in some circles, to be strictly top and severely anti-drug, while in other circles loves to get all hopped up on "tina" and turn bottom up.

 

My guess is that escorts lie no more or less than men in general, which is not a good track record. I had an ex, now dead, becaused he believed his then-current partner, a) was monogamous and, b) had been tested. At least one was a lie. My advice to folks who wish to stay negative is to practice safer sex with any partner, every time.

[Guest HOTnySTUDRYAN]

Hi,

 

I noticed a post about escorts who bareback and thought I'd make a public service announcement about this reality:

 

I am asked once or twice a week by people calling me on the phone or emailing me if I am into "raw" sex...When it's email, I don't even reply, when it's on the phone, I often quiz the person about why they are looking for this. The subject fascinates me.

 

But anyway, I think about half the escorts I know are HIV positive.

 

Is this common knowledge, or shocking to everyone?

 

RYAN in New York