Is it OK to ask potential hires of their HIV status?

[marylander1940]

I was discussing this issue with a good friend of mine and he feels it is perfectly OK to ask and expect an answer. I told him many may lie and you should approach ANY sexual partner as if they are HIV+.

 

He still thinks it is a legitimate question, and escorts should answer truthfully. Many escorts include their status in their ads, and demand the same (not sure how you guarantee that).

 

Curious as to where many of you stand.

 

yes, they can just lie about it...

 

[jimboivyo]

I'm getting the feeling this is getti g to be a lets beat the hookers thread. Guess what guys, clients lie about their status and whether they bb or not. This whole hooker client game is a two way street.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

nothing i said went in that direction. never meant it to either.

 

I was stating published facts. whether you're an escort or not, it's something folks should be mindfull of. it's no game to me. it's peoples lives.

[seaboy4hire]

nothing i said went in that direction. never meant it to either.

 

I was stating published facts. whether you're an escort or not, it's something folks should be mindfull of. it's no game to me. it's peoples lives.

 

And I was refering to the general thread not anyone in specific.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[+ José Soplanucas]

I agree with most of your detailed posting, but I would like to point out that I never said that anyone who puts "sometimes" under safe sex category is positive. I said that male escorts who state that they only have safer sex sometimes are probably HIV +. I appreciate your posting, but would ask that you avoid mis-quoting my statements.

 

I read your post the same way Juan did. I even had the same reaction, I enthusiastically agree with you when you point to the fact that it is a pointless question. And immediately turned into feeling uncomfortable when you make such a huge generalization about bare backers.

[OneFinger]

Why were you taken aback if you don't mind me asking?

 

I was taken aback because I didn't expect that level of honest disclosure. I've never before had an escort honestly disclose his HIV status. As I originally said, I wish he had told me sooner (simply so it wouldn't be a surprised) but it didn't make a difference in our experience together. However, since this was our first meeting, I totally understand his hesitance to disclose his status to a total stranger

[jimboivyo]

And I was refering to the general thread not anyone in specific.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

you quoted me in your reply. that's why I reacted

[seaboy4hire]

you quoted me in your reply. that's why I reacted

 

Sorry didnt mean to quote you. Im half asleep today.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[Guest]

I read your post the same way Juan did. I even had the same reaction, I enthusiastically agree with you when you point to the fact that it is a pointless question. And immediately turned into feeling uncomfortable when you make such a huge generalization about bare backers.

 

I guess this just underscores the importance of reading something carefully rather than get carried on in one's head about what one thought one read.

[+ José Soplanucas]

"If you're really interested in knowing, a more clever way is to find out if the escort will bareback. If yes, he's probably positive. Anyone who puts "sometimes" under the safe sex category probably has HIV (and God knows what else)."

 

Maybe it is my bad English, but what I read in your words is a raw generalization with no data to back it other than your own prejudices.

[seaboy4hire]

I guess this just underscores the importance of reading something carefully rather than get carried on in one's head about what one thought one read.

 

Maybe im wrong but i read "probably " as may or may not. I didnt read it as a definate that the person is positive.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[ChrisWydeman]

I was taken aback because I didn't expect that level of honest disclosure. I've never before had an escort honestly disclose his HIV status. As I originally said, I wish he had told me sooner (simply so it wouldn't be a surprised) but it didn't make a difference in our experience together. However, since this was our first meeting, I totally understand his hesitance to disclose his status to a total stranger

I would give you a high five if I could. There is SO MUCH stigma about HIV that people are afraid to disclose. HIV isn't what it used to be and is easily treatable and if you take your meds every day. There are MANY amazing escorts that are positive that don't get the recognition they deserve because of their status.

 

I have met so many people who have lived in utter fear of contracting HIV there entire adult life and have missed out a lot of hot sex because of it. Prep is an amazing tool in the fight to prevent HIV and I have gotten many of my clients to look into it because they didn't want to have sex and be afraid anymore. The discussion about the effectiveness of prep is over, regardless of what someone elses status is you don't have to worry as long as you take your meds every day. The science is in folks, IT WORKS.

 

Use what ever safer sex methods your comfortable with but don't miss out on hot sex.

[Guest]

"If you're really interested in knowing, a more clever way is to find out if the escort will bareback. If yes, he's probably positive. Anyone who puts "sometimes" under the safe sex category probably has HIV (and God knows what else)."

 

Maybe it is my bad English, but what I read in your words is a raw generalization with no data to back it other than your own prejudices.

 

A gay male escort who barebacks more likely than not has HIV. I'm not sure I can point to a specific study, but I think it's probably common sense. I don't think that's "prejudiced". I think it's probably pretty factual.

[+ José Soplanucas]

A gay male escort who barebacks more likely than not has HIV. I'm not sure I can point to a specific study, but I think it's probably common sense. I don't think that's "prejudiced". I think it's probably pretty factual.

 

Common sense and prejudices are often synonyms.

[ny2222]

A gay male escort who barebacks more likely than not has HIV. I'm not sure I can point to a specific study, but I think it's probably common sense. I don't think that's "prejudiced". I think it's probably pretty factual.

Sorry but this isn't common sense anymore. PrEP changes that. There are escorts that are HIV neg on PrEP that are now advertising that fact. Real/not real. Don't know. This to me is just another instance on this Board where people bash others for BareBacking and it usually is the escorts that gets the bashing because the clients don't want to come anywhere close to admitting they do it on the Board knowing what will ensue. And I think the number that will bareback will grow with PrEP. If that good?? bad?? I am not going to judge.

And there is the implication that being HIV+ precludes that you can't have safer sex with or without a condom. That just is not correct and there is CLEAR scientific data to support that both with discordant HIV+ couples with zero viral load or with PrEP.

I had a great experience with an HIV+ escort. He disclosed the fact and was zero viral load. He had no problem using a condom and I was on PreP. He made it clear at the onset that we could go either way as he stated he did bareback. We used condoms with no issue. It was a very positive experience and I felt comfortable and safe. Figure that?

And the implication that if you are on PrEP you bareback is again prejudice. I really liked what Chris W said above. PrEP can and hopefully will be freeing for many men. It doesn't preclude that they won't also use condoms IN ADDITION to PrEP. It can give that added safety that hopefully might free them of the fear that so many gay men have concerning HIV and gay sex.

And gentleman you live in a glass bubble if you think not barebacking and using condoms are going to be totally effective in preventing HIV transmission (as was discussed elsewhere on this board).

[ChrisWydeman]

A gay male escort who barebacks more likely than not has HIV. I'm not sure I can point to a specific study, but I think it's probably common sense. I don't think that's "prejudiced". I think it's probably pretty factual.

 

http://men.prepfacts.org

[Juan Vancouver]

"If you're really interested in knowing, a more clever way is to find out if the escort will bareback. If yes, he's probably positive. Anyone who puts "sometimes" under the safe sex category probably has HIV (and God knows what else)."

 

Maybe it is my bad English, but what I read in your words is a raw generalization with no data to back it other than your own prejudices.

 

English is not my first language and I might be reading too much into this, but in this instance "probably" is not used to mean that there is some probability in either direction, it seems what this means in this sentence is something like: "The most likely outcome is ______". In other words, if you want to "know", use this litmus test. Therefore you are not saying it's a probability, but it is almost a certainty. Language is a beautiful thing. I might only be learning to use English properly, but your meaning is transparent.

 

My suspicion of course is confirmed when you write this:

 

A gay male escort who barebacks more likely than not has HIV. I'm not sure I can point to a specific study, but I think it's probably common sense. I don't think that's "prejudiced". I think it's probably pretty factual.

 

That is exactly what I thought your original comment meant.

 

And specially in the states, and certain areas like Ontario, where a lot of people are jumping on PREP, your statement is simply not correct. A couple of years ago, I would think there would be more chances your comment would be correct. Today, that is just not the case. A lot of escorts are on PREP precisely because they understand the extra pecuniary benefits of barebacking with clients without the fear of seroconverting. LOTS of escorts who bareback now are not positive.

 

I am not saying this is great. Not using condoms leaves you vulnerable to other infections.

 

I am just saying that what you point as a high likelihood is nothing but prejudice. (or common sense, as you euphemistically call it).

[MikeyGMin]

the extra pecuniary benefits

 

I love it when you mention that English is not your first language and then use words like "pecuniary." I would wager that a majority of native speakers have no idea what that word means. You go boy!

[Juan Vancouver]

Would it be annoying to say that anyone who speaks three or more latin based languages would know the meaning of pecuniary?

 

Thanks, man. I'll take the compliment.

[Rudynate]

Would it be annoying to say that anyone who speaks three or more latin based languages would know the meaning of pecuniary?

 

Thanks, man. I'll take the compliment.

 

 

Latin: pecunia = money

[Rudynate]

And gentleman you live in a glass bubble if you think not barebacking and using condoms are going to be totally effective in preventing HIV transmission (as was discussed elsewhere on this board).

 

Disagree. It pretty much does work that way.

[+ quoththeraven]

Juan, my understanding of Unicorn's use of the word "probably" is the same as yours, and English is my first (and pretty much only) language.

 

That said, while condoms are not foolproof, the 70-80% effectiveness rating appears to be based on average (i.e., sometimes sloppy) usage, not complete adherence to usage protocols. The CDC stats on the pill as a means of birth control are equally misleading. For the pill, complete adherence has an effectiveness rate of around 98%. I seem to remember condoms being somewhere in the low 90s. The CDC stats are (unfairly, in my opinion) skewed in favor of interventions that require a medical procedure.

 

For what it's worth, I relied on both - the pill before I became pregnant and condoms after - and never had a problem with either. I'm a notorious worrywart, but getting pregnant by accident was not anything I ever worried about. So I find it hard to relate to the fear of sex even when using condoms. If sex isn't pleasurable and joyful, what's the point?

[LADoug1]

Sorry but this isn't common sense anymore. PrEP changes that. There are escorts that are HIV neg on PrEP that are now advertising that fact. Real/not real. Don't know. This to me is just another instance on this Board where people bash others for BareBacking and it usually is the escorts that gets the bashing because the clients don't want to come anywhere close to admitting they do it on the Board knowing what will ensue. And I think the number that will bareback will grow with PrEP. If that good?? bad?? I am not going to judge.

And there is the implication that being HIV+ precludes that you can't have safer sex with or without a condom. That just is not correct and there is CLEAR scientific data to support that both with discordant HIV+ couples with zero viral load or with PrEP.

I had a great experience with an HIV+ escort. He disclosed the fact and was zero viral load. He had no problem using a condom and I was on PreP. He made it clear at the onset that we could go either way as he stated he did bareback. We used condoms with no issue. It was a very positive experience and I felt comfortable and safe. Figure that?

And the implication that if you are on PrEP you bareback is again prejudice. I really liked what Chris W said above. PrEP can and hopefully will be freeing for many men. It doesn't preclude that they won't also use condoms IN ADDITION to PrEP. It can give that added safety that hopefully might free them of the fear that so many gay men have concerning HIV and gay sex.

And gentleman you live in a glass bubble if you think not barebacking and using condoms are going to be totally effective in preventing HIV transmission (as was discussed elsewhere on this board).

Agree. People do and have seroconverted from unprotected oral sex. Rare but true.

[+ quoththeraven]

Here's what I'd like to know. Has anyone heard of someone who seroconverted from anal sex despite consistent and correct adherence to condom usage? And if it happens, wouldn't there be scholarly articles written about it because it would undermine the condoms will protect you public health message?

 

People should take precautions to prevent the transmission of HIV and other STIs. What form that takes is up to them, although there are STIs that only condoms help prevent and others that neither condoms nor PrEP address. But demonizing condoms to promote PrEP makes no more sense to me than demonizing PrEP to promote condoms. I am skeptical, though willing to be convinced, that the 70-80% ratio represents anything more than improper condom usage.

[AdamSmith]

I am skeptical, though willing to be convinced, that the 70-80% ratio represents anything more than improper condom usage.

The devil may lie in the details of what is 'proper' condom usage. My experience has been that it is not at all uncommon for a condom to break during even slightly vigorous sex. The bottom clenches his sphincter a bit -- on the next thrust, pop goes the rubber. I've had this happen during sex with women too, when she exerts just a bit of the old Kegel pressure. Trouble is you don't always feel the condom break.

[+ quoththeraven]

The devil may lie in the details of what is 'proper' condom usage. My experience has been that it is not at all uncommon for a condom to break during even slightly vigorous sex. The bottom clenches his sphincter a bit -- on the next thrust, pop goes the rubber. I've had this happen during sex with women too, when she exerts just a bit of the old Kegel pressure. Trouble is you don't always feel the condom break.

 

It may also have to do with individual circumstances. Porn stars like Conner Habib report always using condoms on set and have not experienced breakage. I'm fairly certain the sex they engaged in was vigorous and lengthy, as well as frequently interrupted.

 

This may be similar to my experience with lipstick. I assumed I was doing something wrong because it so often winds up on my teeth. Then an independent makeup consultant I went to told me some women's lips and teeth are configured so it's inevitable. The end result is that I only wear makeup (lipstick and blush) to events like weddings and galas.