Advice on escorts and STD's

[bobtrucker1]

Hi. Going to be visiting an agency girl soon (a thai one), and wondering about HIV specifically. Are escorts who work for agencies often checked for infection? Because I am aware that (for some strange reason) in asian cultures such as in Thailand people are either unaware or maybe just don't care about practicing safe sex, and are obviously notorious for this.

Would you advise getting checked out at a clinic even just after one encounter or is the risk low enough to just leave it unless symptoms are eventually found?

Sorry if this post sounds stupid, don't really know how it works.

Thanks, I'd really appreciate any feedback

[Goldy]

Hiya bob:
Not sure about the agency & checking - perhaps some of the more experienced members who have used their services can help with that.

Regarding HIV specifically - the risk of transmission will be based on what activities you perform and if a person is HIV +ve, what their viral load is, so it varies, but is usually quite low. It is highest when receiving unprotected anal sex.
Symptoms of HIV can be nil / vague e.g. feeling a bit under the weather and so if you ever have a risky encounter where you are concerned, better to go to a GUM clinic. The usual blood test done won't give a definite negative until around 3months post the encounter, so often if its very risky behaviour the option of post-exposure prophylaxis meds is discussed.

hope that helps - remember a person could have other STIs apart from HIV too!

[up_for_it]

hope that helps - remember a person could have other STIs apart from HIV too!

Yeah, I would be concerned about all the other nasty stuff floating around out there as well. Believe it or not, there are some things out there far worse than HIV. Stay safe and bag it up!

[bobtrucker1]

Thanks very much for the advise/info, very helpful.

True, but I'm mainly concerned about HIV as it's pretty much a death sentence right.

I'm going to be safe where the actual intercourse Is concerned, and I never get ill/feel under the weather so I'd presume I'd notice.

I suppose I'd have to end up going anyway for own peace of mind.

[bobtrucker1]

Yeah, I would be concerned about all the other nasty stuff floating around out there as well. Believe it or not, there are some things out there far worse than HIV. Stay safe and bag it up!

Will do. Do people go to the clinic even after protected and rare/one-off encounters though or is it pointless?

[Westheangelino]

Just a get a scrip for Truvada and you won't ever have to worry about HIV again.

[bobtrucker1]

Just a get a scrip for Truvada and you won't ever have to worry about HIV again.

Aaaaa.... No. I don't want to get a life threatening disease so I can do bareback. That's fucking trampy. Respect yourself a bit more.

[trish]

Truvada is an PrEP which the CDC ranks as being UP TO 92% effective if used consistently and as directed. It does not protect other STDs. The effectiveness of condoms against HIV transmission are ranked somewhere between 90% to 95% . As with anything else, the probability of HIV infection rises with number of exposures.

[Westheangelino]

^ Um....I'm talking about taking a drug to make sure you WON'T get infected. Also, just because you are taking truvada doesn't mean you have to bareback. It's useful for bareback fans like me, but also for people who worry to damn much to begin with.

[rodinuk]

True, but I'm mainly concerned about HIV as it's pretty much a death sentence right.

No it isn't.

.... and if you ever finally do go and see an escort and let's face it you've been asking for questions on here for over a year now then go and get tested at a GUM clinic afterwards.

[Ts RedVeX]

And make sure you do it after the "window period" which in case of HIV is 3 months effectively... :p

[bobtrucker1]

^ Um....I'm talking about taking a drug to make sure you WON'T get infected. Also, just because you are taking truvada doesn't mean you have to bareback. It's useful for bareback fans like me, but also for people who worry to damn much to begin with.

Ok sorry, I thought you mean take it and there's no need for Condoms or something. Seriously though why do bareback with escorts who probably have a 50/50 chance of having the disease?

[bobtrucker1]

And make sure you do it after the "window period" which in case of HIV is 3 months effectively... :p

Thanks for the info :)

[bobtrucker1]

Truvada is an PrEP which the CDC ranks as being UP TO 92% effective if used consistently and as directed. It does not protect other STDs. The effectiveness of condoms against HIV transmission are ranked somewhere between 90% to 95% . As with anything else, the probability of HIV infection rises with number of exposures.

Thanks for the info. I'm not entirely sure what the graph is supposed to achieve as it doesn't compare the likelihood of infection with the usage of the drug and the likelihood of infection through using condoms solely.

Do you by any chance know of the estimates of HIV contraction of both insertive and receptive penetration as well as with oral penetration though?

[trish]

Thanks for the info. I'm not entirely sure what the graph is supposed to achieve as it doesn't compare the likelihood of infection with the usage of the drug and the likelihood of infection through using condoms solely.

Do you by any chance know of the estimates of HIV contraction of both insertive and receptive penetration as well as with oral penetration though?
First off, I AM NOT A DOCTOR. I'm just extrapolating from what one can find from just a couple of CDC sources. According to the CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html ) the probability of HIV infection through anal receptive intercourse via one encounter with an HIV infected partner is 138/10000 (e.g. 0.0138 which is a 1.38% chance of contraction through one unprotected anal receptive exposure). The same source gives you a 0.11% chance of contraction via one unprotected anal insertive exposure. Remember “exposure” means intercourse with an HIV infected partner.

The chart pictures four curves:

The top two curves are for people using PrEP alone. The topmost curve illustrates the probability that someone on PrEP alone will acquire an HIV-infection via N independent anal receptive exposures. The curve below that is for anal insertive exposures. The number N of exposures is read off the horizontal axis and the corresponding probability if found by going up to the appropriate curve and over to the vertical axis. So according to the graph, if someone uses PrEP alone, and has 2500 anal receptive exposures the probability that they have become infected is about 0.2 (i.e. 20% chance of transmission). 2500 is a lot a exposures. I originally made the chart imaging two life partners, one infected and one not. In such a situation 500 exposures per year seems reasonable. Over a three decades that would be 15000 exposures. Since (as stated in my last post) the effectiveness of condoms against HIV is comparable to the effectiveness of PrEP the graphs for people using condoms alone would look very much like the two for PrEP alone.

The bottom two curves are for people using PrEP + Condoms. These curves are so low you can barely see them...so I made a separate picture for them, and still you can barely make out the bottom most curve.

The chart illustrates two lessons: 1) Keep your number of exposures low to none;i.e. avoid risky behaviors 2) barring that use protection and get yourself regularly checked (remember HIV isn't the only STD).

(If you're just experimenting and have no idea whether you're going to make visiting escorts a habit tell your doctor. Truvada is not generally recommended for intermittent use.

[wiltthestilt]

Truvada is an PrEP which the CDC ranks as being UP TO 92% effective if used consistently and as directed. It does not protect other STDs. The effectiveness of condoms against HIV transmission are ranked somewhere between 90% to 95% . As with anything else, the probability of HIV infection rises with number of exposures.

Condoms are actually close to 100% effective at stopping the spread of HIV when used correctly; well above that 90-95% figure. HIV can't penetrate latex. So if the condom is intact the virus can't make the jump in any area that the condom covers. The risk is that the condom could break. Or, less likely, that HIV could penetrate some uncovered area that is exposed to body fluid--perhaps if there is a break in the skin somewhere.

[Ts RedVeX]

So roughly, with 63M people living in the UK, out of which about 100k have HIV, the probability of getting it during a single unprotected session of receptive anal intercourse with a random person here is 1/630*0.0138 so 0.0022% (1 in 45k LOL) sounds like u need to be quite lucky to get infected overall. I am just curious how they came up with that 0.0138 figure...

Going further, if I work 7days a week, have on average 3 customers per day and they will all fuck me bareback, I will need 42 years till I am very likely to be have gotten infected... I will have naturally ceased to be by then:dead:

[Laphroaig]

Hi. Going to be visiting an agency girl soon (a thai one), and wondering about HIV specifically. Are escorts who work for agencies often checked for infection? Because I am aware that (for some strange reason) in asian cultures such as in Thailand people are either unaware or maybe just don't care about practicing safe sex, and are obviously notorious for this.

Would you advise getting checked out at a clinic even just after one encounter or is the risk low enough to just leave it unless symptoms are eventually found?

Sorry if this post sounds stupid, don't really know how it works.

Thanks, I'd really appreciate any feedback



If you're worried about HIV and other STDs then WEAR A CONDOM. It's not rocket science and most escorts will insist on it anyway.
If you're still worried then you should probably just give up on the idea and have a wank instead...

[tarot]

I have lived and visited Thailand for years , and I have yet to meet a girl ( TS or otherwise)to not hold safety as their first priority.I have heard horror stories , but never encountered them .
In my visits to escorts , I have completely given up anal ( although I still fantasise about it) and I never ask the escort to come .I just get into oral and stroking and that does me fine.
In the old days , the escorts I know were always super safe .

[Westheangelino]

Prostitutes are NOT vectors for HIV and never have been

[trish]

So roughly, with 63M people living in the UK, out of which about 100k have HIV, the probability of getting it during a single unprotected session of receptive anal intercourse with a random person here is 1/630*0.0138 so 0.0022% (1 in 45k LOL) sounds like u need to be quite lucky to get infected overall. I am just curious how they came up with that 0.0138 figure...

Going further, if I work 7days a week, have on average 3 customers per day and they will all fuck me bareback, I will need 42 years till I am very likely to be have gotten infected... I will have naturally ceased to be by then

Good question. I’m taking the 0.0138 (found in http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html ) to be the probability of acquiring an HIV infection through a single, unprotected, anal receptive “copulation” with an HIV-infected person; i.e. one unprotected anal receptive “exposure”. It tells us nothing about how many people in the UK actually carry the HIV virus. If nobody in the UK were infected, then the probability of acquiring HIV from one unprotected, anal receptive encounter with a person in the UK is (0/63M)(0.0138 ) = 0. If everybody in the UK were infected the probability of transmission (via one unprotected anal receptive encounter) would be (63M/63M)(0.0138 ) = 0.0138 ->1.38%. The point is: to get the number you seem to want (the probability of transmission through one anal receptive encounter with person in the UK, you need to multiply 0.0138 by the number of HIV infected persons in the UK (a number I don't know off-hand) divided by the population which you say is roughly 63M. This will be larger than the 0.0022% you came up with (unless there's only one infected person in the whole UK).

[tarot]

Clever , Trish - love your maths xx

[fireblad]

I do not understand myself or humanity in that we use ignorance as a shield to our conscience by having sex with people we dont know their sexual health history. If we know that someone has an STD we avoid that person sexually even with a condom but if we dont then we use a condom or not. And if the condom comes off during sex the panic that ensues is almost comical. It seems wise to fear STDs before casual sex than to fear after the fact, but then I am not a very wise person at all. :dead-1:

[bulldogtuck]

True, but I'm mainly concerned about HIV as it's pretty much a death sentence right.

It's not a death sentence.

Doctors are projecting HIV poz people to live well into their 70s and 80s now. The meds are so effective these days that HIV poz don't even carry the virus in their blood or semen. That's if they take their meds daily.

That's why it's important to get tested regularly because infected people with high viral loads that don't know their status are the most dangerous to other partners.

[trish]

Continuing with Post #21. According to ( http://www.nat.org.uk/HIV-Facts/Statistics/Latest-UK-statistics/People-with-HIV-in-UK.aspx ) 98400 people in the UK were infected with the HIV virus in 2012. Of course the distribution of these infections may not be uniform, but for purposes of argument let’s suppose that the chance that the person you pick up and bonk tonight has HIV is 98400/63M = 0.00156 -> 0.156 %. Now let’s suppose by “bonk” we mean “unprotected anal receptive intercourse.” Then the probability of acquiring HIV through one bonk is (0.00156)(0.0138 ) = 0.0000215 -> 0.00225% . Seems, RedVex, that you got the right answer, but left out the 98400 when you explained your procedure.

So the probability of walking away from one random bonking without acquiring HIV is 1-0.0000215 = 0.9999785. The probability of walking away from two random bonkings without acquiring HIV is (0.9999785)(0.999785) = 0.9999569 . The probability of walking away from N random bonkings without acquiring HIV is (0.9999785) to the Nth power.

Let’s figure, as you do in your post, that someone is bonked by three random people daily. That 7665 bonks per year. (0.9999785) to the 7665 power is 0.848 . So the probability of acquiring HIV by year’s end is 1-0.848 = .152 -> 15.2%. At this rate of bonking, one will have been bonked 76650 times by decade’s end. (0.9999785) to the 76650th power is 0.192. The probability of acquiring HIV by decades end is therefore 1-0.192 = 0.808 -> 80.8%.

We might be able to argue the odds are better than depicted here, by assuming the 78% of those in the UK who know they carry the virus are on PrEPs that significantly lower the amount of virus in their fluids. (See bulldogtuck’s post above).

[bobtrucker1]

Continuing with Post #21. According to ( http://www.nat.org.uk/HIV-Facts/Statistics/Latest-UK-statistics/People-with-HIV-in-UK.aspx ) 98400 people in the UK were infected with the HIV virus in 2012. Of course the distribution of these infections may not be uniform, but for purposes of argument let’s suppose that the chance that the person you pick up and bonk tonight has HIV is 98400/63M = 0.00156 -> 0.156 %. Now let’s suppose by “bonk” we mean “unprotected anal receptive intercourse.” Then the probability of acquiring HIV through one bonk is (0.00156)(0.0138 ) = 0.0000215 -> 0.00225% . Seems, RedVex, that you got the right answer, but left out the 98400 when you explained your procedure.

So the probability of walking away from one random bonking without acquiring HIV is 1-0.0000215 = 0.9999785. The probability of walking away from two random bonkings without acquiring HIV is (0.9999785)(0.999785) = 0.9999569 . The probability of walking away from N random bonkings without acquiring HIV is (0.9999785) to the Nth power.

Let’s figure, as you do in your post, that someone is bonked by three random people daily. That 7665 bonks per year. (0.9999785) to the 7665 power is 0.848 . So the probability of acquiring HIV by year’s end is 1-0.848 = .152 -> 15.2%. At this rate of bonking, one will have been bonked 76650 times by decade’s end. (0.9999785) to the 76650th power is 0.192. The probability of acquiring HIV by decades end is therefore 1-0.192 = 0.808 -> 80.8%.

We might be able to argue the odds are better than depicted here, by assuming the 78% of those in the UK who know they carry the virus are on PrEPs that significantly lower the amount of virus in their fluids. (See bulldogtuck’s post above).

Nice maths. So having protected sex once or twice with one partner carrying the disease is extremely minimal? And that's presuming they do have the virus which they may not.

I was never going to practice unsafe sex, but I was still concerned with the chances even with the condom as a factor into its prevention

[tarot]

Bobtrucker , for whatever it's worth , I have felt alot better in myself since giving up anal sex. In the past I never practised unsafe sex and I really enjoyed anal , but something was amiss.I also feel now I'm getting older , and I may not be as attractive as I once was , I'm also being considerate to the escort in question.What's the point in making someone do something , just because you've paid them.So these days , it's all very safe .And I seek escorts that are highly intelligent and very sensual .

[trish]

Nice maths. So having protected sex once or twice with one partner carrying the disease is extremely minimal? And that's presuming they do have the virus which they may not.

I was never going to practice unsafe sex, but I was still concerned with the chances even with the condom as a factor into its prevention
The probability of transmission by bonking once with a HIV-infected person is 0.0138.
The probability of no transmission through a single bonk with an HIV-infected person is 1-0.0138 = 0.9862. The probability of no transmission after two bonks with an HIV-infected person is (0.9862) squared; i.e. 0.9726.

The probability of acquiring HIV by bonking once with a random person in the UK is 0.0000215. (I just noticed this got mistranscribed in my post above to 22.5%...of course it's really 21.5%).
The probability of not acquiring HIV through a single bonk with a random person is 1-0.0000215 = 0.9999785. No HIV after two bonks is (0.9862) squared; i.e. 0.9999569.

So if you made one mistake, chances are you're okay. But for your own sake and the sake of the people with whom you have sex, get checked (and tell the doctor when you thought you may have exposed yourself to make sure the proper time window has elasped).

[trish]

addendum: .0000215 is of course 0.00215%

[bobtrucker1]

addendum: .0000215 is of course 0.00215%

Ah ok, thanks for the info. So Protected anal (both insertive and receptive) therefore has an extremely low chance of transmission then? I have no plan on 'bonking' haha

[trish]

Ah ok, thanks for the info. So Protected anal (both insertive and receptive) therefore has an extremely low chance of transmission then? I have no plan on 'bonking' haha
PrEP alone or Condoms alone have in the neighborhood of 92% effectness (some would say higher and others would say lower). That means each affords a protection that lowers the unprotected rate of transmission by 92%. The probability of transmission via one anal receptive encounter with an HIV infected person is (as we said before) 0.0138 . Notice that the number 0.0011 is 92% lower than 0.0138. So, if you are anally penetrated on once occassion by an HIV infected person wearing a condom, the probability that you acquired HIV is 0.11%. Whether that's high or low is up to you to decide, but its certainly a lot better than the 1.38% chance without protection.

Now suppose you have protected (with a condom) anal receptive sex with a random person from the UK. Then the probability of acquiring HIV is (98400/63M)(0.0011) = 0.00000172 -> 0.00017%. That’s pretty good, even in the long run.

[Ts RedVeX]

Let’s figure, as you do in your post, that someone is bonked by three random people daily. That 7665 bonks per year.

One of my hidden assumptions was that only planet Earth was taken into consideration.

[trish]

One of my hidden assumptions was that only planet Earth was taken into consideration.
Why would you hide an assumption like that? This changes everything!

[Ts RedVeX]

That's why I decided to unveal it.

[lifeisfiction]

Use condoms and you should be fine. If you do see any sores, then politely decline. Its not different then having sex with anyone you don't know. Now a lot of medical professionals will say escorts are much safer than women you would regularly meet because many do test and are informed about their health.

So relax and try if it has peek your interest and go with someone reputable so you know what you are getting.

Most importantly, when you are sexually active, be open an honest with your medical care provider and if you feel that you cannot be open with them, then find someone who you can. Be vigilante and be active in your testing, even if your risk is low. An informed medical provider will tell what you need to test for, because depending on what you are doing sexually, you don't need to worry about everything.

[LittleGuy]

Don't risk it. Most of the escorts have some sort of disease. Don't take their word for it, most of them lie just to make some money. Have you been vaccinated from hpv or hepatitis a or hepatitis b?

[bobtrucker1]

Don't risk it. Most of the escorts have some sort of disease. Don't take their word for it, most of them lie just to make some money. Have you been vaccinated from hpv or hepatitis a or hepatitis b?

Sorry, risk what? I wasn't planning on not using protection.

I'm honestly not sure obviously had all the baby ones and one recently within the last 3-5 years.

[fred41]

Also, I believe there are now antigen tests that can detect HIV in a couple of weeks.

[tarot]

Little guy, on what evidence and facts do you base your statement 'that most girls are diseased'?I'm always interested in how people come up with such information .How do they know - or it just speculation?
I think one has to be very careful not to make sweeping generalisations .

[bobtrucker1]

Little guy, on what evidence and facts do you base your statement 'that most girls are diseased'?I'm always interested in how people come up with such information .How do they know - or it just speculation?
I think one has to be very careful not to make sweeping generalisations .

Because their job is to have sex with strangers every day... Of course they're going to be diseased. You're pretty naive if you're going into encounters thinking that they're completely healthy.

Also think about some of the types of people who visit escorts. I'm not saying everyone here are unclean or whatever, but naturally with such a high number of sexual partners; they're going to be sleeping with guys who aren't cautious about safe sex practices.

+ (and this is really a generlisation however) thai girls are renowned for not having the same approach to safe sex as we are here. I suspect partly due to social reasons (apparently it is seen as un-manly to use condoms there); and educational reasons (unaware of some of the dangers of having unprotected sex).

Just like if you're a racing driver - you drive cars more so are more likely to have a crash than the average person; if you work in the sex industry you will be having more sex and so are more likely to get diseases than the average person.

[bobtrucker1]

Little guy, on what evidence and facts do you base your statement 'that most girls are diseased'?I'm always interested in how people come up with such information .How do they know - or it just speculation?
I think one has to be very careful not to make sweeping generalisations .

I bet you (and this is purely speculation) that 50% if not more of transexual escorts are HIV positive

[BBaggins06]

I bet you (and this is purely speculation) that 50% if not more of your brain cells have been killed off mainly due to daily sessions of huffing paint thinner, gasoline & formaldehyde ...

[bobtrucker1]

I bet you (and this is purely speculation) that 50% if not more of your brain cells have been killed off mainly due to daily sessions of huffing paint thinner, gasoline & formaldehyde ...

Really? I was replying to a guy who refused to believe that people who's job is to have sex have STD's.

You're probably just butthurt and in denial that you've been having bareback sex with people who may actually have diseases for years...

Silly Americans

[bobtrucker1]

It's quite sad that you've also gone through every one of my posts on this thread and disliked them.

How old are you?....

[RobynBlakeTS]

I bet you (and this is purely speculation) that 50% if not more of transexual escorts are HIV positive

excuse me?

Speculation based on what facts, statistics or own personal experience? That's quite a offensive statement to make.

I myself am tested every month and every month my results come back negative.

[Jericho]

Speculation based on what facts, statistics or own personal experience?

Didn't you read that?
Page four of, "Pulled out of my Anus", weekly.
Available Thursdays, from any good Newsagents. :shrug

[hairyguy]

in 2008, i fucked a girl a few times over 2 months with no condom (a prostitute) in asia. i hit jackpot. i came inside her all those times and never got an std. this year, i did oral sex on 5 girls during a 5 day stretch and i got sick. i was healed on day 3 and then i got sick again on day 4 when i went in for more pussy juice (yes i am addicted). anyway, we must always assume that the sex worker is diseased. as you said, that is their job. we can prepare by using condoms, dental dams, or whatever measures for protection. to think that sex workers are completely clean is indeed naive and false.

my std was a throat infection both times (i didn't use a dental dam because yes i need the real raw pussy juice). i used azithromycin to cure it. basically my next time, i will just smell the girl's asshole and pussy and lick her armpits. no std's lie in armpits. i absolutely cherish admire, and yes, respect, sex workers and won't stop going to them but i cannot be naive and assume they are clean.

[RobynBlakeTS]

in 2008, i fucked a girl a few times over 2 months with no condom (a prostitute) in asia. i hit jackpot. i came inside her all those times and never got an std. this year, i did oral sex on 5 girls during a 5 day stretch and i got sick. i was healed on day 3 and then i got sick again on day 4 when i went in for more pussy juice (yes i am addicted). anyway, we must always assume that the sex worker is diseased. as you said, that is their job. we can prepare by using condoms, dental dams, or whatever measures for protection. to think that sex workers are completely clean is indeed naive and false.

my std was a throat infection both times (i didn't use a dental dam because yes i need the real raw pussy juice). i used azithromycin to cure it. basically my next time, i will just smell the girl's asshole and pussy and lick her armpits. no std's lie in armpits. i absolutely cherish admire, and yes, respect, sex workers and won't stop going to them but i cannot be naive and assume they are clean.

erm a throat infection is not an STD. Orally you could catch Herpes, Warts, Gonorrhea which are an STD but a throat infection is just a throat infection and not an STD. Also an oral STD would not be cured in 3 days and more likely would not show within a few days after point of infection.

Your right though in thinking when visiting a sex worker always think the worse and follow precautions to minimize risk of infections.

[bobtrucker1]

excuse me?

Speculation based on what facts, statistics or own personal experience? That's quite a offensive statement to make.

I myself am tested every month and every month my results come back negative.

But being tested doesn't stop you getting the disease does it. And what would an escort do if they did get it? Carry on as usual I bet.

I didn't mean to sound offensive sorry

[bobtrucker1]

Didn't you read that?
Page four of, "Pulled out of my Anus", weekly.
Available Thursdays, from any good Newsagents. :shrug

And that's why I called it speculation. It was a guess. But it's probably not too far off, you're all just in denial and refusing to believe what you do could give you diseases.

[bobtrucker1]

anyway, we must always assume that the sex worker is diseased. as you said, that is their job. we can prepare by using condoms, dental dams, or whatever measures for protection. to think that sex workers are completely clean is indeed naive and false.

Thank you for the post.

And finally, someone with some common sense!

Everyone on here is in denial it's quite funny really.

[Tapatio]

... you're all just in denial and refusing to believe what you do could give you diseases.

No, we're all on Turdvada. It's a magical pill that keeps the SuperClap™ away.

It's not for everyone, though, as side effects include kidney disorder, death, and the inability to reason.

[RobynBlakeTS]

But being tested doesn't stop you getting the disease does it. And what would an escort do if they did get it? Carry on as usual I bet.

I didn't mean to sound offensive sorry

So now you are just ignoring your original statement of 50% infection rate among escorts.

What an escort would do is down to personal choice, I can only speak for myself and I know I wouldn't continue to work as a sex worker.


And that's why I called it speculation. It was a guess. But it's probably not too far off, you're all just in denial and refusing to believe what you do could give you diseases.

Its a random guess based on no facts or figures so it makes it way off.


Thank you for the post.

And finally, someone with some common sense!

Everyone on here is in denial it's quite funny really.

I call troll.

[RobynBlakeTS]

No, we're all on Turdvada. It's a magical pill that keeps the SuperClap™ away.

It's not for everyone, though, as side effects include kidney disorder, death, and the inability to reason.

We can all bareback now and catch all the STD's out there but its ok because its 99% agaisnt HIV so doesn't matter if it leaves you open to herpes, warts, etc

[bobtrucker1]

So now you are just ignoring your original statement of 50% infection rate among escorts.

Sorry how does that have anything to do with ignoring what I said? And again, it wasn't a statement. It was speculation.


Its a random guess based on no facts or figures so it makes it way off.

Again, I never claimed it was based on facts, it was speculation.

And I'm a troll? Because I said to someone that believing escorts are clean is being naive? You lot seem really insecure and attack people when their opinion differs from your own.

Because of course, someone who works in the sex industry cannot POSSIBLY have a higher chance of having STD's can they...

Why are you even arguing with me? I have nothing against escorts of those who visit them - all I'm saying to the naive set of people who've commented on this thread is that (to quote 'HairyGuy') "we must always assume that the sex worker is diseased. as you said, that is their job. we can prepare by using condoms, dental dams, or whatever measures for protection. to think that sex workers are completely clean is indeed naive and false."

I don't see how that's offensive or that it's been pulled out of my arse. There just seems to be a lot of people in denial on here.

[bobtrucker1]

So now you are just ignoring your original statement of 50% infection rate among escorts.

Sorry how does that have anything to do with ignoring what I said? And again, it wasn't a statement. It was speculation.


Its a random guess based on no facts or figures so it makes it way off.

Again, I never claimed it was based on facts, it was speculation.


I call troll.

And I'm a troll? Because I said to someone that believing escorts are clean is being naive? You lot seem really insecure and attack people when their opinion differs from your own.

Because of course, someone who works in the sex industry cannot POSSIBLY have a higher chance of having STD's can they...


Why are you even arguing with me? I have nothing against escorts or those who visit them - all I'm saying to the naive set of people who've commented on this thread is that (to quote 'HairyGuy') "we must always assume that the sex worker is diseased. as you said, that is their job. we can prepare by using condoms, dental dams, or whatever measures for protection. to think that sex workers are completely clean is indeed naive and false."

I don't see how that's offensive or that it's been pulled out of my arse. There just seems to be a lot of people in denial on here.

Whether what I said offends you or scares you or not - there's nothing ridiculous about it.

It's a pointless argument, and a lot of people on here don't have any common sense so there's no point arguing with you.

[Laphroaig]

Sorry how does that have anything to do with ignoring what I said? And again, it wasn't a statement. It was speculation.



Again, I never claimed it was based on facts, it was speculation.



And I'm a troll? Because I said to someone that believing escorts are clean is being naive? You lot seem really insecure and attack people when their opinion differs from your own.

Because of course, someone who works in the sex industry cannot POSSIBLY have a higher chance of having STD's can they...


Why are you even arguing with me? I have nothing against escorts or those who visit them - all I'm saying to the naive set of people who've commented on this thread is that (to quote 'HairyGuy') "we must always assume that the sex worker is diseased. as you said, that is their job. we can prepare by using condoms, dental dams, or whatever measures for protection. to think that sex workers are completely clean is indeed naive and false."

I don't see how that's offensive or that it's been pulled out of my arse. There just seems to be a lot of people in denial on here.

Whether what I said offends you or scares you or not - there's nothing ridiculous about it.

It's a pointless argument, and a lot of people on here don't have any common sense so there's no point arguing with you.


Contradicting yourself there...

Virtually every example you've given has been made up, you've got no facts to back it up.

[RobynBlakeTS]

Sorry how does that have anything to do with ignoring what I said? And again, it wasn't a statement. It was speculation.

Because you've skirted the original point that you have made a statement and have no facts or figures to back it up and have once again failed to produce any. Also a statement of speculation is still a statement.


Again, I never claimed it was based on facts, it was speculation.

Thats true you did say it was speculation but you can not make such a wild and ignorant statement with out facts and figures to back it up.


And I'm a troll? Because I said to someone that believing escorts are clean is being naive? You lot seem really insecure and attack people when their opinion differs from your own.

No far from it I'm im not attacking you im just using my right of reply to disagree with your offensive statement. I call it trolling because you are making offensive statements with no facts to back it up.


Because of course, someone who works in the sex industry cannot POSSIBLY have a higher chance of having STD's can they...

Depends on the individual, some people will be a higher risk and others no.



Why are you even arguing with me? I have nothing against escorts or those who visit them - all I'm saying to the naive set of people who've commented on this thread is that (to quote 'HairyGuy') "we must always assume that the sex worker is diseased. as you said, that is their job. we can prepare by using condoms, dental dams, or whatever measures for protection. to think that sex workers are completely clean is indeed naive and false."

Im not arguing with you merely refuting what you are saying. I have met people from this site and none of them have been "naive", they've all been intelligent switched on people who take their cleanliness and health quite serious and know how to have fun while still being safe.


I don't see how that's offensive or that it's been pulled out of my arse. There just seems to be a lot of people in denial on here.

Its pulled out of your arse because you've yet to back it up with facts or figures youve just made a figure of 50% up based on nothing but your own thoughts.


It's a pointless argument, and a lot of people on here don't have any common sense so there's no point arguing with you.

No common sense based on what? Apart from West on this forum I've not seen anyone advocate unsafe sexual practices.

[bobtrucker1]

Contradicting yourself there...

Virtually every example you've given has been made up, you've got no facts to back it up.

I never said I did have facts to back it up, it was speculation.

What exactly have I used as an example???

ALL I was saying is you cannot go to see an escort and not expect them to have harmful diseases... is that not just common sense?

I'm really getting bored of this

[bobtrucker1]

Because you've skirted the original point that you have made a statement and have no facts or figures to back it up and have once again failed to produce any. Also a statement of speculation is still a statement.

Stop getting so buthurt over my opinion. If I don't know anything and I'm pulling these 'facts' (which I never claimed them to be) out of nowhere, then why do you care so much about what I say!?


No far from it I'm im not attacking you im just using my right of reply to disagree with your offensive statement. I call it trolling because you are making offensive statements with no facts to back it up.

I'm not trolling though. That was just one comment that wasn't supposed to cause so much offense and I am sorry that it did so. However, all I was saying before that is that people (like the ones who were commenting on this thread) shouldn't be so naive as to believe all escorts are clean and would tell you otherwise.

People may be practicing safe sex on here but it was comments like "take this drug and you can do bareback with anyone" and "what proof do you have that escorts are likely to carry STD's?" that caused me to say people are being naive; that is all.



Its pulled out of your arse because you've yet to back it up with facts or figures youve just made a figure of 50% up based on nothing but your own thoughts.

And that's why it was speculation. I think everyone needs to stop taking that little comment so seriously especially if you think I am so uninformed regarding the issue.

[Laphroaig]

I never said I did have facts to back it up, it was speculation.

What exactly have I used as an example???

ALL I was saying is you cannot go to see an escort and not expect them to have harmful diseases... is that not just common sense?

I'm really getting bored of this

My experience of TS escorts is limited compared to many on here but I've seen a total of 7 TS escorts, all have used condoms and I haven't caught any STDs. That is a fact, albeit from a limited sample range.

If your "speculation" was correct I should have done bareback with at least 3 and picked up more than 1 STD from them.

If (and this is speculation) the prevalence of bareback and STDs among escorts was as high as you claim then the escort review section on here would be filled with horror stories.

As for common sense, I've already posted it but it seems to be worth repeating as you're not listening, either wear a condom or if you are still worried about the risk don't visit an escort in the first place.

Common sense would also ask why you posted the original question in the first place if you've already made your mind up that most escorts are diseased barebackers?

[rodinuk]

If you can't back it up you shouldn't speculate or make racially-based slurs.

If you can't post without insulting other members you shouldn't be posting

[GroobySteven]

I support Rod's banning of this user, even though he's sent me a long argument about how he wasn't trolling, reading through this thread, it seems he certainly was - and starting a thread with racial slurs such as he did, is never a good start.

I've monitored and moderated this site for many years and it's clear some people do just come on to spread (non) facts and create issues about transsexuals and sex workers. The more conspiracy-minded amongst us may believe these are part of a system to try and spread these rumors further, and the rest of us, that they're just sad little cunts.

Either way as his email account rejected mine (futher proof) then here is my answer as I'm sure you'll be back to read it some way or another.

"I read the whole thread, I think a) you're a troll b) you did use racial based ignorant slurs in your first post.
If the moderator of that forum banned you - then that's his call."

[CaptainPlanet]

Be careful guys, this gent said he got gonorrhea from BBBJ. Im sure it happens a lot more than we all want to believe.


http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/cas/4765369313.html

[lifeisfiction]

His belief is nothing new, there are many people who have the same misconception about stds and escorts. I have seen people report higher number for transgender in terms of HIV, which is not reflective of the actual number based on groups who want to ban prostitution.

I have had many people tell me that prostitution spreads disease. They look at the odds and say how can someone who has sex at that frequency must have something?

Just read Canada's discussion of their new prostitution law. You will see some groups argue that the prostitutions can increase the spread of disease. Most people think prostitution is street prostitution or rarely the high-end prostitution where a person is 10,000 dollars a night. (For crying out loud look at the majority of Hollywood's portrayal.)

I wouldn't be hard on him, he just doesn't know and he will let his fears play on him. He is not the only one. Most people don't take the time to inform themselves about issues and usually let assumption dictate their thoughts and actions.

I didn't find he was trolling. I was going to link him to some articles by sexual health medical professionals about prostitution to help him in his decision. He just lacked information and just taking someone's word on the internet without anything else can sometimes be a no no. I seen people have misconceptions on this board and this is just another one of them.

[tarot]

He was being difficult and obnoxious on purpose .Supressive / nasty people always , always , generalise ....period .

[Prospero]

lots of disinformation.
HIV is NOT a death sentence, but its not a good place to be either. It will mean a lifetime on medication which can shorten your life expectancy.

But Truvada is not a cast iron guarantee against infection either - no matter how many times wetheangelino says it is. Its a pretty good way of reducing the risk.

BThe best way is to play safe.

And westheangelino also forgets there are plenty of other things out there you an get from unprotected sex Increasingly anti-biotic resistant Syphilis for instance and hepatitus.