Barebacking on top

[pierrot]

I hire escorts fairly regularly, but I try to stick to those who advertise that they play safe. Recently in considering two different escorts, I read something that indicated that they do barebacking. In both cases I asked them about it, and they quite honestly told me that they only bareback as tops, never as bottoms.

Now my question is -- is barebacking as a top safe in terms of HIV or otherwise (STDs). My understanding is that it certainly provides less protection from STDs, and is also risky for HIV (though less so than bottoming unprotected).

Am I wrong? Should I avoid these guys just as I would avoid anyone who barebacked as a bottom? Or am I just being naive that other escorts who claim to be always safe might do this too?

[AaronScottDC]

>Now my question is -- is barebacking as a top safe in terms of

>HIV or otherwise (STDs).

 

>Should I avoid these guys just as I would avoid

>anyone who barebacked as a bottom?

 

 

First, if you think barebacking as a top is safe from HIV, then how do you explain the rate of HIV infection in Africa? Of course, the vast majority of sex in Africa is heterosexual, not homosexual, but it isn't only the women (bottoms) who are being infected. The men (tops) must be getting it from having unprotected sex with infected females and visa versa. So, clearly barebacking as a top isn't safe from HIV infection. Nor, other STD's.

 

As far as avoiding those escorts just because they have or have not engaged in bareback sex, as long as you use a condom during your time together, you shouldn't be putting yourself at any more risk with them than anyone else. Many people advise that you should always assume that the person you are having sex with is HIV positive and act accordingly.

 

Aaron Scott DC

http://www.erados.com/AaronScottDC

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

[+ deej]

Slo-mo russian roulette

 

You've been a member here for two years and you've somehow missed the other few dozen(s) threads on this subject? How is that?

 

Let me run this down for you:

 

* The only safe sex is none at all, or masturbation.

* Protected sex is considered safer, not safe. There is still risk.

* Unprotected sex is considered UNSAFE. Period.

 

If a guy says he's willing to have unsafe sex with you (and only you because you're as special as your Mamma always said), he's probably having it with others.

 

The rest is risk management. Unprotected sex is NEVER considered safe.

[Guest icon513]

RE: Slo-mo russian roulette

 

Agree with the above posts. A very close friend of mine who is an exclusive top thought he was safe. Now he is HIV+.

[Flower]

>Am I wrong? Should I avoid these guys just as I would avoid

>anyone who barebacked as a bottom? Or am I just being naive

>that other escorts who claim to be always safe might do this

>too?

 

So one more time -- You are thinking you should avoid the guys that admit that they BB in favor of the ones that either tell you they don't; tell you they only BB as a top; or don't tell you at all?

 

If that makes sense to you then why not BB top or bottom the guys that assure you they are HIV- ? It makes about as much sense to me.

 

 

But to answer your more pressing question, according to the SFDPH, "Unprotected anal sex is an incredibly risky activity for a bottom, much more so than for a top. The risk of HIV transmission to a bottom during unprotected anal sex is 15 in 1,000 versus 3 in 10,000 from a bottom to a top" Doing the math, it's a risk factor of 150/10,000 (bottom) verses 3/ 10,000 (top) which translates to me as a top being 50 times less likely to contract HIV from anal sex, but those still are bad odds for a potential (at this time) life threatening, life-altering, and life time disease. There is a recent study that claims these odds are too low for tops since they have discovered a more concetrated collection of virus in and about the anus than previously thought--time will tell.

 

People spend millions of dollars every week on the unlikely event that they will win the lottery with odds less that 1/10,000,000 or higher, but play much shorter odds with their lives--go figure.

 

Personally, I have had sex with some poz guys (I'm sure you have also) and consider it no different than having sex with an unknown or professed negative person--I consider anyone I have sex with to be poz and act accordingly--it's that simple -- except of course for the really, really hot guys, 'cause they are all negative }(

 

 

The comparison of bottoms to vaginal sex (elsewhere in this thread) is misplaced and an invalid comparison--the concentration of the HIV virus in the vagina and it's secretions is much, much higher than encountered in anal sex.

[Guest Cumbee]

Here is the bottom line (no pun intended!). WHY would you want to take this risk? Period!

[+ deej]

Ya know, I really could have done without the thought of vaginal secretions being planted in my head this evening.

 

But if that thought makes the rest of your post stick in someone's mind, I'm glad you posted it. :-)

[giovoni]

Punish the honest and fuck the liars.

 

Hopefully this won't sound too insulting but I think there is a lot of "being naive" in your question. First of all you say that the escorts you asked 'quite honestly' responded that they only bareback as tops. How can you possibly know they answered you honestly? Further WHY do they only bareback as tops? Is it because they think they will avoid HIV this way, is it because they resent their clients and think barebacking as tops will more effectively spread the HIV that they already have to them, is it because they are infected with HIV and think they have less risk of being superinfected with another strain? You have NO way of knowing.. and certainly have no cause to canvas their responses as honest.

 

Second and more importantly, its clear that your overriding goal in asking these questions of your partners is to treat those with HIV and STD's as sexual lepers. Since this is the case why not actually ask what you want to know and inquire if they are regularly tested for STD's and HIV. That way you can more easily ostracize the honest infected ones from your life and keep the actual negatives along with the liars snuggly close in your bed.

 

As has been mentioned before, SOMEONE you've slept with in your life has been HIV+ and/or has had gonorrhea and/or has had syphilis and/or has had chlamydia ETC. Asking people whether or not they have these things might possibly lower your risk of contracting them if you do as you imply and shun every honest person you meet that is infected.

 

One other thing, as long as you're too chicken shit to just ask if your partners are HIV/STD+ you may want to add asking if they do crystal meth to your tangential HIV/STD interview. Studies lately have shown that unsafe sex and the spread of HIV is increasingly linked to this new bane of homosexual men.

 

Gio in Denver

 

"I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."

[Guest bighugbearphx]

>Doing the

>math, it's a risk factor of 150/10,000 (bottom) verses 3/

>10,000 (top) which translates to me as a top being 50 times

>less likely to contract HIV from anal sex,...

 

Whem I worked as a counselor on the local AIDS hotline, it always amazed me when callers would quote "odds" like that and say "Well, 3 in 10,000 ... that's not so bad."

 

I'd ask them if they ever bought a lottery ticket. If they had, they were assuming that odds of 1 in several million WOULD come in for them. Yet, they assume 3 in 10,000 won't happen, when dealing with a potentially fatal disease. A matter of perspective.