WOW!! WOW..if this indeed is true

[tsdvdman]

Then it should put a significant halt to "Tranny Chasing" as we currently know it

http://www.christianpost.com/news/st...ave-hiv-93462/

[Dino Velvet]

Submerge 'em in water. If they drown they're negative.

[BrassVillanueva]

Looking at the study in the Lancet piece itself, you can already see the flaw: "Data were only available for countries with male-predominant HIV epidemics, which included the USA, six Asia-Pacific countries, five in Latin America, and three in Europe." So we're not talking about a worldwide pandemic here, we're talking about a percentage of a select percentage of a select percentage. While it may be indicative of SOMETHING (and that something is certainly a problem), to say that transsexual women in general are fifty times more likely to be infected is absurd. We've gone over before on this board the very real possibility (I'd almost call it a likelihood) that the number of transgendered people in general may well be larger than it's reported simply because of the social stigma. That factor alone would be enough to throw this "study" off. I just don't buy it.

[tsdvdman]

Looking at the study in the Lancet piece itself, you can already see the flaw: "Data were only available for countries with male-predominant HIV epidemics, which included the USA, six Asia-Pacific countries, five in Latin America, and three in Europe." So we're not talking about a worldwide pandemic here, we're talking about a percentage of a select percentage of a select percentage. While it may be indicative of SOMETHING (and that something is certainly a problem), to say that transsexual women in general are fifty times more likely to be infected is absurd. We've gone over before on this board the very real possibility (I'd almost call it a likelihood) that the number of transgendered people in general may well be larger than it's reported simply because of the social stigma. That factor alone would be enough to throw this "study" off. I just don't buy it.

I tend to agree with you to a small degree. However..we cannot ignore the fact that people in general who are in the sex industry/escorts/porn..etc. are more likely at risk just by the fact of multiple sex partners.. sometimes a daily basis. Even if these numbers are skewed by a lot..they are still significantly high..and should be cause for anyone indulging to have second thoughts.
I mean..who are we fooling here??...

[Stavros]

I have seen articles based on research among Transexual prostitutes in the USA and Brazil, so while this study may have included data from more countries the subject has been covered before. Anal sex was been identified in the 1980s as a critically vulnerable pathway for the virus which is why transexual prostitutes have been recorded as HIV+ in high numbers, but that also includes prostitutes not using condoms who also have drug problems, and the studies I saw were done in the 1990s. It isn't really possible to come up with a definitive figure when so many transexual prostitutes are reluctant to take part, or, because they are not street walkers, are not even 'seen'.

There was concern a year or so ago that the reduction in the incidence of HIV infection, and the advances made in retroviral drugs had introduced some complacency among younger people and that this was expected to lead to a new spike in recorded cases as a result of bareback sex. In fact, I believe that in sex resorts like Pattaya, the bigger danger is with other diseases such as Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and Herpes. As is always the case, protection at all times is the safest way to go.

[GroobySteven]

Even if these numbers are skewed by a lot..they are still significantly high..and should be cause for anyone indulging to have second thoughts.
I mean..who are we fooling here??...

I believe anyone indulging in any form of sexual interaction with another needs to know and be aware of the risks so they can both make a personal choice and take precautions.
I'd take exactly the same precautions with a girl I'd just met either in a bar or on a date as I would have taken with a sex worker, whichever country she was in. The risk may be 2x, 5x or 50x lower with a non-TS sex-worker but I'm those percentages are still there and still too risky for me.

I'd be very careful of the 50x more likely in this report, as mentioned statistics and especially percentages can easily created to support your bias.

[amberskyi]

I honestly think that as sex workers we take more precautions and take less risks because for us hiv/stis is a reality and not something that we think happens to "other" people the way allot of ggs/men do.
I know so many gg girls who think they can't get hiv because the only fuck "straight" dudes.or even guys who think like the op that certain groups are more at risk so they may gamble with perceived less at risk groups because they have this false sense of security.
I know EVERY dick can have a nasty surprise for me regardless of race, nationality, sexual preference, class, etc.

[bluesoul]

However..we cannot ignore the fact that people in general who are in the sex industry/escorts/porn..etc. are more likely at risk just by the fact of multiple sex partners.. sometimes a daily basis. Even if these numbers are skewed by a lot..they are still significantly high..and should be cause for anyone indulging to have second thoughts.
I mean..who are we fooling here??...

i think people in porn are actually less likely to be at risk because they test more often and quarantine all infected parties (where applicable)- however escorts are more likely to be risky because there is no way of knowing how the transact their business

[broncofan]

I second what Seanchai said and want to add. Any time you take a risk that involves a relatively small percentage of the population, and then you take a segment of that group at higher risk, the increase in risk is likely to be many fold.

For instance, let's say someone with Barrett's esophagus is more than 50 times more likely to get esophageal cancer than someone without. That does not mean esophageal cancer is especially common among those with Barrett's. You are saying a risk factor makes a relatively uncommon condition much more common, but still not necessarily common.

I don't want to say this use of statistics is sophistry, because if true it does give you an idea of the relative risk. But it does not speak to the risk in an absolute sense.

But how does this guide behavior? Does it mean you don't wear a condom with a gg? Or with a man? No. You should engage in safe sex regardless of the HIV risk of that segment of the population because you're having sex with an individual and not someone who has identical characteristics to everyone else in that group.

[EvaCassini]

Those who have become "afeard", you do realize that for tgirls ( like myself and Jamie and most U.S. tgirls I know who do porn ) have to have a current blood test to bring to set to show the photographer and other models ( if playing with others ). Most girls I know are clean. Jamie and I are clean and can prove it. ( we drowned! haha ) ( in ref to Dino's post lol )