Frightening Experience... Advice Requested Please...

[guptasa1]

Alright folks. The escort in question called me and has seen this thread. He wasn't irritated at all and was very nice about it and agreed to get tested and send me the direct results, which I appreciate.

 

I honestly do believe this just was an (admittedly bad) slip-up... Doesn't make the situation much better (I'm still not sure about PEP, etc.), but I do think it was big of him to at least call and try if he could see if he could make things as right as they can be in this all-around sucky situation.

 

I *really* don't think he's a bad guy. That's not excusing what happened...but I do want to make that clear...

 

(And yes, I still plan to go to the clinic and talk with them tomorrow. I understand the point about PEP effectiveness diminishing, however.)

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Guptasa1

 

Sorry for your situation. I am heartend somewhat by the fact that Chad has been in contact and is cooperating with you to attempt to ease your concerns and hopefully limit treatment that, IMO, you should undertake. That is an important step to help you minimize the uncertainty and hopefully shorten your concerns and the grief that accompanies PEP treatment.

 

That is a sign that this is bad judgement on Chad's part and not malicious behavior. It was incredibly bad judgement on his part and also naivete on your part. Not to add to your downside feelings but never ever assume that the other party is acting in good faith. To be clear, you did nothing wrong but in this day and age guys need to take proactive steps to protect themselves. Others need to know not to make any assumptions and to take matters into their own hands. When things feel different or are 'restarted' it is best to trust but verify. Good luck to you and hopefullly Chad will take away a big lesson from this, both personal and professional.

 

Best wishes....

[Boston Guy]

>Guptasa1

>

>I am heartened somewhat by the fact that Chad has been in contact and is cooperating with you to attempt to ease your concerns and hopefully limit treatment that, IMO, you should undertake.

>

>That is a sign that this is bad judgement on Chad's part and not malicious behavior. It was incredibly bad judgement on his part ...

>

>Good luck to you and hopefully Chad will take away a big lesson from this, both personal and professional.

>

>Best wishes....

>

 

I agree with and echo the above.

 

1. The fact that he has been in contact could indicate that he's basically a good guy who did something really, really stupid or that he's concerned about his reputation and is calling you to try to head disaster off before it strikes (if possible). You've had personal contact with him and feel, even after everything that has happened, that he's a decent person; that says something good about him -- and also about you.

 

2. By now, the uniform condemnation of his actions here must have helped him understand how really wrong it was of him to try to take advantage of you like that, especially after you had told him not to. Since he's an escort who will presumably continue to come in contact with clients, perhaps he will learn from this and at least not try this with other clients in the future. If so, your post may well have saved some other man much future grief. That's a credit to Hooboy for making M4M available.

 

3. I felt a bit sad today as I pondered this whole affair. I've lost so many friends to HIV, often in really awful kinds of deaths. Yet young guys today are back barebacking, somehow either not really understanding the risks or disregarding them. Either is sad and we see increased rates of HIV infection among our younger population. Sex and brains just don't always go together, more the pity. Maybe, just maybe, "Chad" will reconsider the whole idea of barebacking for himself. If so, you may very well have saved his life (even if he doesn't realize it.)

 

You've done a real service by posting this, even if that wasn't your original intention. I wish you the best of luck with the medical side of things, as well as peace of mind.

 

BG

[guptasa1]

Regarding being naive, I suppose that it's true when a partner starts with a condom, I expect/assume they'll finish with one. It's pretty tough to repeatedly check that unfortunately (and shouldn't be necessary IMHO, but I understand your point that it is). When I felt the "difference", I suppose I should have checked, and I think it even crossed my mind, but then I thought "nah - I'm just being paranoid - he probably just shifted positions or added more lube, etc."

 

Now, some updates.

 

I'm holding the review for the time being (thanks to Hooboy for that). I do intend to post something, but I think it's only fair to him to wait until this is resolved before posting. Then I can still be honest, but it can be hopefully a much happier ending for everyone involved. I have no wish to harm anyone's reputation or anything else - I'm just legitimately a bit freaked out.

 

I do think he's a good guy deep down and things just moved somewhere they shouldn't have, probably due to impulse or not thinking or who knows. His apology combined with his willingness to test show a concern for me and taking responsibility for what happened, and I do appreciate that.

[Tommygunzz]

I have read this thread with interest all day long. I understand this guy's concern about infection and I certainly hope his worry is not warranted.

 

But, I'm also concerned about revealing the escort's identity(s), solely on the accusation of the accuser. I thought this message board didn't allow the participants to "out" others readers. I'm surprised that on the flimsy and contradictory "evidence" of Guastapa the witchhunt has begun to burn an escort.

 

Especially concerning is that obviously HB himself is involved and obviously accomodating the Guastapa.

[Boston Guy]

I don't think I completely understand your objection.

 

Essentially, the entire point of this site -- including the Message Center -- is to discuss escorts and things relating to them. There have been any number of discussions in the past related to egregious behavior by one escort or another.

 

I don't think there's any question of "outing" anyone, in any way. Rather, the client who started the post stated that the escort behaved in a certain (particularly reprehensible) manner. He's going to write a review, at some point, discussing the incident as well.

 

Evidently, the escort in question agrees to the facts and has agreed to testing, etc. So I don't see any kind of witchhunt, wherein an innocent party is accused of something they are not guilty of.

 

Finally, no real names have been used.

 

BG

[guptasa1]

Contradictory? As far as I know, nothing I said was contradictory, and I'd be glad to clear anything up.

 

However, my intention is not at all to harm anyone. And HooBoy isn't "accomodating" me at all. If anything, holding a review benefits the person in question for something much more favorable, not vice-versa.

 

In regards to revealing the identity, that was a very tough call and one I'm still not entirely comfortable with my decision about. I initially started this thread purely to get advice. I only revealed the escort after it was requested and some good points were given as to why I should. Am I comfortable with it? I still don't know. This hasn't been an easy situation any way you look at it. Part of me wishes I never said anything, and part of me thinks it was the right thing to do. However, either way, my intention is not at ALL a witchhunt or to burn anybody. Ideally, I just want to get to a point where this is no longer a worry and nobody's (him or me) the worse for wear.

[TotallyOz]

While I do understand your utter frustration and anger with the situation, I have to wonder the best way to deal with a situation like this. I think a review is most appropriate but I am not sure posting his name here was the right course of action. It does not give him the chance to explain himself. Yes. Yes. I know anyone can post here and if he knows about the post he should come here and post but to do so is just bringing on more drama to his life and perhaps the best thing for him at this point is to wait for the review and then to respond.

 

As far as your initial post, it is much appreciated and I hope the responses were helpful to you. Regardless of any advise, take care of yourself first before listening to anyone. Go to the doctor far away if necessary and get this taken care of asap. That is first.

 

I hope that all turns our well for you in the end as I am sure it will. It is great that you were able to come here and get so much good advise on the issue. Best of luck to you!

[guptasa1]

Moderators, if you wish to remove the name(s) from these posts (I unfortunately can't), that would be fine by me and perhaps warranted at this point. I certainly don't want to cause a lot of trouble for him, and while I still don't know the best course of action, it might be better to contain this at this point. It's moving in a better direction fortunately.

[Guest arbee]

Not that it should matter to anyone (including me), but I'm having a bit of a problem, I guess, getting a handle on the situation. The whole thing seems so upside down.

 

I've never dissected a thread line by line, but this one almost begs for it:

 

"They recommended I wait and go to the clinic tomorrow instead (both for me to gather information and financial considerations). I hope it wasn't a mistake, but that's what I agreed to. I'll still get there by the 44 hour mark or so tomorrow... "

 

==> Well, it could be a mistake... no, make that blunder... but, for unfathomable reasons, that's the direction things seem to be heading. And this "44 hour mark" -- you're doing a COUNTDOWN? Do you think you're at NASA? Do you think viruses have little stopwatches and that they're going to "behave" until that magical 72 hour point passes?

 

"From the sounds of it, though, they usually prescribe it only in sure-fire scenarios."

 

==> What is sure fire? Enjoy gambling, do you? Or do you just like playing with statistics? Remember, the odds of winning at Lotto are infinitesimally small, but *somebody* does win.

 

"I honestly do believe this just was an (admittedly bad) slip-up... Doesn't make the situation much better (I'm still not sure about PEP, etc.)..."

 

==> Slip up? Did the condom fly off his dick by magic? Still not sure about PEP?

 

"I *really* don't think he's a bad guy..."

"I do think he's a good guy deep down..."

 

==> An individual, an escort, engages in a high-risk activity with you... and you said you're not the only one he's barebacked with... and he potentially exposes you to a deadly infection and he's a sweet guy? And, turning things around, he's exposed himself to a potential risk, too. After all, how does he know what your status is? Why should he take your word for it? No, he's NOT a nice guy; he's dangerous; in fact, he's a public health menace. Your assessment of his character is beyond naive.

 

"(And yes, I still plan to go to the clinic and talk with them tomorrow. I understand the point about PEP effectiveness diminishing, however.)"

 

==> You understand about diminishing effectiveness? Obviously not.

 

====================

 

Where is your outrage? Some bum may have given you HIV (maybe/probably not... but could have). He clearly didn't care a jot about you at the time. (Nor did he consider that YOU might give him a disease.) And you call him a nice guy... His behavior is what, IMO, defines him as a ####, not an escort. What about this do you not understand?

 

Given the uncertainty of the situation, and the "ticking clock," how can you justify a delay in treatment? Gonna wait till 2 hours before the 72 hour point? One hour? What?

 

Be responsible... to yourself!

 

(Sorry for the angry discourse.)

[Boston Guy]

>Moderators, if you wish to remove the name(s) from these

>posts (I unfortunately can't), that would be fine by me and

>perhaps warranted at this point. I certainly don't want to

>cause a lot of trouble for him, and while I still don't know

>the best course of action, it might be better to contain this

>at this point. It's moving in a better direction

>fortunately.

 

Boy, I don't understand this at all.

 

So, because you think at this time that things might turn out OK -- because you've calmed down and convinced yourself of that -- now you think that it might be warranted to remove his name and, thus, not give any warning or protection to other people who might view this thread later??

 

How do you know it will be ok? How do you know you didn't have microtears and exchange of deadly fluids? If you're going on the odds and thinking that it's "likely" you'll be ok, then clearly you're less concerned about your health than a lot of us have been.

 

Beyond that, when he CHOSE to bareback, he didn't know what the consequences would be. He knew -- must have known -- what they could potentially be, for either you or himself. Disregarding the personal risk to both of you, he chose to go ahead, of his own volition, after you explicitly told him not to.

 

So someone potentially puts you in the position of contracting a deadly disease, for his own enjoyment, and you think that maybe now it's warranted not to warn others???

 

I'm done with this thread.

 

BG

[woodlawn]

> I'm surprised that on the flimsy and

>contradictory "evidence" of Guastapa the witchhunt has begun

>to burn an escort.

 

I must have missed something, because I surely do not see anything flimsy or contradictory about guptasa's account of what occurred. He provided an eyewitness account of his actions and the escort's. If the prosecution in the OJ case had had an eyewitness to the crime, they would have gotten a conviction. Eyewitness testimony is exactly the opposite of "flimsy." And what exactly is contradictory about his account? I have read every post of his in this thread, and all give a consistent account of what he knew and when he knew it. If you can point out the 'contradictory' part, I'm sure we'd all like to see that. If not, withdraw your accusation.

 

>Especially concerning is that obviously HB himself is involved

>and obviously accomodating the Guastapa.

 

What is that supposed to mean? Other than the fact that he read this thread, how is HB 'involved' in this? I see only one post from him, and that post expresses skepticism about guptasa's account (without any basis for doing so that I can see). That is HB's usual reaction to any criticism of an escort's behavior, as we all know.

[guptasa1]

First of all, thanks everyone for the kind words. This has not been a fun situation.

 

I've finally been able to talk to some real PEP experts. And to be honest, they recommend (as much as a recommendation as they're allowed to give) against treatment given my situation. So I think I'm not going to pursue it (still talking to one more source).

 

I know a lot of you may be upset about this, but let's look at the facts.

 

My exposure was with someone who truly believes he is HIV- and is willing to get tested (now and in the future) and show me the results. I really believe he thinks he's negative. That alone doesn't prove anything, and of course I realize that, but the fact remains there's a very good chance he's negative.

 

Secondly, EVEN if he was positive, my exposure was of a very short duration (2 mins.), there was no sizable exchange of fluids (eg. ejaculation), no trauma to the area (blood), etc. I even washed out inside directly afterwards. There might have been some pre - I don't know...but even with that, my risk is very, very low.

 

Finally, a large number of people, even with more severe exposures, cannot complete PEP because of the severity of the month-long side effects. And some of them could be permanent, including liver damage. They frankly just don't know enough about long-term effects yet.

 

That combined with them not knowing how effective PEP is, especially after the 12 hour mark, makes it a very hard call to make.

 

Given my relatively low risk (precisely because it was stopped quickly), my own call is that the possible long-term side-effects and short-term misery of PEP outweighs the very, very small chance I picked up HIV. I hope I don't regret making that call later, but it's what I feel is the best course of action.

 

Now, in response to revelation of the name, that's another area where I don't have a clear answer. I don't know whether it was right to do so or not, at least in this forum. I do plan to say *something* in a review...I'm just having it held until this is resolved so I have all my information up front about it. I honestly don't want to be too damaging to anybody, especially for a mistake (and yes...it was awful it happened - no question there...but even so). I also don't want anybody else put at risk because of this either.

 

Anyways, I know a lot of people may not agree with all of this, but I'm doing the best I can here. Thanks.

[woodlawn]

>Now, in response to revelation of the name, that's another

>area where I don't have a clear answer. I don't know whether

>it was right to do so or not, at least in this forum. I do

>plan to say *something* in a review...I'm just having it held

>until this is resolved so I have all my information up front

>about it.

 

This is the part that I and several other people don't understand. You want it "held until this is resolved." Held until WHAT is resolved? Until you have your next HIV test and find out whether you are infected? Whether the test is positive or not, what difference does that make in evaluating what the escort did? I agree with Boston Guy -- you are giving the impression that so long as you personally were not harmed by what the escort did, you don't care what else is involved and would like the whole thing forgotten. You are entitled to your privacy, but as a frequent participant in this site, and one who has often asked for advice and information from others, it is hardly responsible for you to be aware that an escort reviewed here has engaged in dangerous behavior with a client and fail to share that information with others.

 

 

>I honestly don't want to be too damaging to

>anybody, especially for a mistake (and yes...it was awful it

>happened - no question there...but even so).

 

Even so? What the escort did was wrong but even so . . . even so WHAT? What is the other side of the argument? What is the justification for his behavior? I can't think of any, and you haven't presented any.

 

Again, the impression created is that you are so reluctant to say anything negative about an escort that you don't want to do it even if he deliberately put your life at risk. Whatever may be the outcome with regard to your physical health, and I hope the outcome is a favorable one, I think you need a psychiatrist. Urgently.

[guptasa1]

First of all, I did not intend to give the impression I'm not saying anything at all or don't care about anyone else. That's simply not true. There will be a review posted. I can't in good conscious NOT say at least something about this because the situation is so bad.

 

However, I think the fact that he's apologized and agreed to test and send the results, etc., is important information that needs to be included in the review as well.

 

I do very much want to protect people who might be put at risk by barebacking behavior, but I also don't want to destroy someone over a mistake if that's indeed what it was.

 

I don't know how else to explain it.

 

As far as the forum entry, I've got mixed feedback as to whether HERE was the proper place to disclose the name. Opinions vary unfortunately, and I still don't know which is right.

[noviceny]

Guptasa,

So sorry for all of your trouble. Just saw this thread right now and wish I had seen it sooner. I have worked for an HIV/AIDS clinic in NY for the past four years and am very familiar with your type of situation. I am not surprised that the doctors suggested not to use PEP. In my experience, they usually dont give it out to anyone who believes they have been put at risk. Usually just to occupational exposure, such as medical professionals, cops, etc.

 

To put your mind at ease and for medical reasons, please get tested with this guy. If he is safe, then you are safe. I have a lot more to say, but I dont think that this thread is for my benefit, but for yours.

 

Being in a small town sucks when situations like this occur, but please find a competent legitimate authority (social worker, doctor, etc.) to talk to about medical and psychological issues. I do not think you are crazy or self-destructive, but counsel in these matters can be very helpful for future decisions, and to help you with what has come to pass.

 

Much luck and health to you

[guptasa1]

Thanks. I appreciate it. PEP advice varies, but I think...hope...I'm making the right choice here based on everything I've found out.

 

(Oh, and as to saying more, feel free).

[woodlawn]

>but I also don't want to destroy

>someone over a mistake if that's indeed what it was.

 

That is the part I don't get. If your original description of what occurred is accurate, I don't see how you can use the word "mistake" to describe it. What nature of mistake? That when you told him you wouldn't bareback he mistakenly thought you said you would? That when he put on a condom he mistakenly . . . frankly, I don't know how to complete that sentence. I don't know how someone can take off a condom by mistake. It requires a certain effort, and unless you are in a state of somnambulism I don't see how you can do it without realizing what you are doing.

 

>I don't know how else to explain it.

 

I'd be surprised if you could explain how the actions of the escort that you described to us in your first post could be the result of a mistake. The statements you attribute to him constitute an admission by him that he took off the condom deliberately in order to show you the difference between 'with' and 'without,' and they also constitute an admission by him that he understood you had already refused permission for sex 'without.' I don't see how his statements that you recounted to us can make any sense unless both of those things are true.

 

As for destroying someone, I think that is laughable. Ask Anthony Holloway if the reviews here accusing him of stealing money from several clients have stopped him from working. Ask 'Beware of Nick' if it is possible for an escort to go on working even if a dissatisfied client creates an entire website dedicated to warning people that he is dangerous. Anyone who thinks a negative review here can 'destroy' an escort who is determined to keep working is fooling himself.

[guptasa1]

You make some very good points, woodlawn.

 

By mistake, I meant a mistake in judgement. Horniness/sex can make a person do stupid things that they wouldn't probably do otherwise. That is NOT an excuse - I know that. But I suppose motivation comes into play for me. I don't feel he intended any harm to me whatsoever in what he did. That doesn't excuse it, but I don't want to hurt anybody over it either.

 

And as far as the website, I sincerely hope you're right. I of course would very much hope he's safe with everyone from now on, but if this is what he chooses to do and he is safe from now on, I certainly wouldn't want his business/reputation to be irreparably harmed by one incident, especially if it's not repeated. (And I do know that may not be a popular viewpoint, but it is the way I feel.)

[guptasa1]

Hey all,

 

I had a relly frightening experience this weekend, and I'd appreciate some input...

 

Yesterday (less than 24 hours ago) I had a sexual experience with a guy.

 

Despite previous communications to the contrary, this person requested to bareback. I think I made it perfectly clear that was unacceptable, and I wanted him to wear a condom, which he finally agreed to. I feel partially responsible for what happened because I should have known and stopped this right then and there and just gotten the hell out of there... But I figured as long as he agreed to use a condom, it would be fine...

 

Midway through the encounter, I felt something change and assumed he just changed position, trusting that he was still wearing the condom. He soon after asked me if I ever had sex bareback. I replied only once (my first boyfriend where we both lost our virginity, so it was perfectly safe that way of course), and he proceeded to tell me that, well, I was right now and tried to point out how much better it felt.

 

I *immediately* made him stop, horrified that we were barebacking.

 

Now, the details of the situation. I would estimate the time he was inside me without a condom to be about 2 minutes. Could have been slightly longer or shorter, but it was around there.

 

He did not ejaculate inside me. From other activities, I don't think he precums a ton, but he does some probably.

 

There was no identifiable trauma afterwards (no blood, etc., from my anus).

 

He said he just tested "last week" and came up completely clean, routinely tests every two months, doesn't normally bareback (though does occasionally), and in general is sure he's negative. He went as far as to promise me I had nothing to worry about.

 

Given all of the above, I'm hoping the odds are on my side.

 

Now, here are my questions.

 

First of all, what level of risk would you classify this encounter as? Secondly, and more time-critical, I've considered trying to get PEP treatment and even inquired about it (with little success; people around here either don't know about it or act like I'm crazy asking about it). Part of me feels I'm going way overboard here, but the other part of me says I should do everything I can, and the time window's closing. What are your thoughts?

 

I would really appreciate ANY advice right now. I am NOT happy this happened at all...

 

Thanks.

[+ nycman]

>If he is safe, then you are safe.

 

I hate to be a nit-picker, but when discussing matters of life and death one must be extremely precise.

 

The above statement is false.

 

Yes, if his HIV test is negative...you are generally at less risk.

 

However, one of the times when a person is MOST infectious is when they are first infected.

 

During the phase after initial infection the body is just starting to ramp up it's immune system to try and contain the virus. During this phase the viral load is extremely high, and their HIV test could still be negative.

 

So even if his HIV test is negative...he still MAY have infected you.

[noviceny]

NYCman

 

Yeah, youre right.

 

As soon as I wrote that I thought about the possibility that this guy could have contracted the "bug" and was tested while still in the window period. I left what I have written as it was, since it also much harder to pass the virus during the window period than it is when the virus has had sufficient time to multiply in the body. I guess I should have said that the odds are much more in his favor, but not that he is scott free. However, I figured that if he went to be tested with this guy that a counselor would tell him that anyway.

 

Good call though

[guptasa1]

Thanks guys. I was aware of this, but even so, a negative test is still a very good sign. Unfortunately, there's no way to conclusively know until the 13 week mark (which most sources I've read consider definitive...though the CDC still uses 6 months). I may test twice. Once at 6 and a half weeks (which should give me a very good idea) and the other at 13.

[farmdude]

After you have determined your status, consider RETRIBUTION.

 

Loriane Bobbitt had the right idea!}(

[rland]

Shaun, any updates to this situation?