gb0138

"Condoms are a must, unless you pay a healthy tip"

66 posts in this topic

25 minutes ago, Badboy said:

Bit, I think you are missing the point.  The reason HIV (as well as any other STD) would be a death sentence is because my wife would kill me if I gave her an STD.  Squeaky clean, that's my motto.

Thank you Badboy! Enough said. Try explaining "Hey I saw this hooker, and I got HIV" to your wife and you know she tell her family too. :eek::eek: And lets see what kind of death sentence you get. Squeaky clean, is the best motto.

1 hour ago, Kashmir said:

Would you see a doctor that puts their hand inside you with out a glove? No, that would be malpractice and crazy. No tip, no rate increase, no bonus is worth my life or becoming Typhoid Mary. Just my opinion. 

Your killing me smalls. :D:D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2016 at 9:43 AM, MisterBigShot said:

This practice affects everyone in this community. All the more reason to see established providers who are well reviewed and who practice safety with all clients. BP is and always will be a risky endeavor for clients and providers alike...for numerous reasons...LE Busts and unsafe practices just to name a few.

We all should follow Nikki's suggestion and get tested regularly...both clients and providers.

Back Page isn't to blame for this one. The advertising and reviews were here on TOB. So the risky endeavors can be found all over the place.

Back Page isn't the enemy. It isn't lower class. I have said this a million times if any adult site had the same amount of traffic as BP they would have the same problems.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Danielle Rae said:

It may not be a big deal to you but it is not something I want to endure.  While it may not be "Death Sentence" it once was; living with HIV is no walk in the park.  To prevent HIV from progressing to AIDS, one must take multiple daily drugs that can easily cost $1,000 per month.  And the side effects of said medication are less than enjoyable: headaches, diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, skin rashes, etc.  The emotional toll of being HIV positive is considerable.  HIV to those infected with it is still a big deal and it continues to be the world's 5th leading cause of death.   

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JoDoe27 said:

She said, "...the world..." If I had to guess your list is US only.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/

Thats from 2000-2012. It's not top 5 but does rank 6th in the world. 

True, be we're not living in sub-Saharan Africa. We're living in the US, so Boink's CDC statistics are more relavent to this discussion. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

True, be we're not living in sub-Saharan Africa. We're living in the US, so Boink's CDC statistics are more relavent to this discussion. 

I think most of these stats are irrelevant because they don't represent a population like ours. While numbers may be low for a country the risk for a promiscuous population is so very high. You're average American does not have hundreds of sex partners a year, your average provider does.

HIV is alive in the sex work community. There have been outbreaks in porn communities and there is good old Charlie Sheen who loved his escorts. There are many examples of things that happen within these communities that put us at a higher level of risk.

I am not disputing the stats I am just saying they don't really represent this population, our activities, our numbers.

P.S When it comes to thinking about safety in sex work we should think globally. The charity that sends condoms to sex workers in India has run out of money and they could use contributions. India isn't the only place with a very at risk population of sex workers.

Edited by Lucy Kitten
forgot something
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should clarify that the numbers I chose in my original comment were NOT derived from any data source or statistical formulation.  They were just randomly pulled from the top of my head to complete the point I was trying to make.  You can replace the number 40 with the number 2 and my point is the same.   I'm not sure what the debate here is.  HIV is an incurable disease that most of us prefer to avoid experiencing.  While it is true that it is more medically manageable than it was 20 years ago, it hasn't quite evolved to the 'common cold' level of insignificance.  I speak only for myself when I say that i have yet to experience sex that was worth the risk of spending the rest of my life with HIV.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm referring to the numbers as in 10 clients a week, 120 clients, 1/3 etc. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lucy Kitten said:

I think most of these stats are irrelevant because they don't represent a population like ours. While numbers may be low for a country the risk for a promiscuous population is so very high. You're average American does not have hundreds of sex partners a year, your average provider does.

HIV is alive in the sex work community. There have been outbreaks in porn communities and there is good old Charlie Sheen who loved his escorts. There are many examples of things that happen within these communities that put us at a higher level of risk.

I am not disputing the stats I am just saying they don't really represent this population, our activities, our numbers.

P.S When it comes to thinking about safety in sex work we should think globally. The charity that sends condoms to sex workers in India has run out of money and they could use contributions. India isn't the only place with a very at risk population of sex workers.

Lucy, would you mind naming this organization or posting a link to them? 

Thanks!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lucy Kitten said:

Back Page isn't to blame for this one. The advertising and reviews were here on TOB. So the risky endeavors can be found all over the place.

Back Page isn't the enemy. It isn't lower class. I have said this a million times if any adult site had the same amount of traffic as BP they would have the same problems.

I think context is important here. My comment was in response to providers on BP who are actively advertising BB services for an additional charge. With the recent and ongoing LE Stings also...this was the context of my "risky endeavor" comment. I agree with you...BP an advertising site for all sorts of items, is not the enemy. As far as the "lower class" comment goes...I think you took creative license with that one. I didn't say that in my post nor do I think that. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kashmir said:

Exactly Bit! This brings up a great point. Something I have noticed since I began to hobby. One would think it is the young guys asking for bareback, in my experience it is not.

The men that ask and even whine about wanting bareback, are men over 60 years old and even more so after 65 years old.

...

I'm not surprised than most of your requests come for the older crowd. {Not me, btw.  I also wear protective gear (helmet, pants, jacket, etc.) on my motorcycle.}  The younger crowd, including most of you ladies, grew up after AIDS broke out in the gay community.  The message of condoms has always been in your ear.  For the older crowd, who grew up during the era of "free love", condoms were primarily for birth control.  We were in monogamous relationships during the AIDS crisis; it didn't pertain to us.  We also remember condoms as being about as comfortable as a zip-lock baggy. Some of us have enough equipment problems w/o that loss of sensitivity.  When I wintered in FL, word was that STDs were running through the affluent senior communities like wild fire.  The old folks didn't understand safe-sex.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, MisterBigShot said:

I think context is important here. My comment was in response to providers on BP who are actively advertising BB services for an additional charge. With the recent and ongoing LE Stings also...this was the context of my "risky endeavor" comment. I agree with you...BP an advertising site for all sorts of items, is not the enemy. As far as the "lower class" comment goes...I think you took creative license with that one. I didn't say that in my post nor do I think that. 

 

The conversation is about condom usage and providers offering unsafe services were mentioned and you mentioned that BP is the place where that was happening which it wasn't. That was happening here.

So aside from LE you said there are numerous other reasons to avoid BP care to elaborate on those? I don't think my low class comment was all that far fetched. BP really had nothing at all to do with the conversation so why try and lay any blame on it all?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Danielle Rae said:

Perhaps I should clarify that the numbers I chose in my original comment were NOT derived from any data source or statistical formulation.  They were just randomly pulled from the top of my head to complete the point I was trying to make.  You can replace the number 40 with the number 2 and my point is the same.   ...

Using PFA statistics to make your point is seldom a good idea.  But then if your point is fear & loathing, who cares - right?

{sarcasm} 40 clients/week * $500/session * 52 wks/year = $1MILLION+.  Damn - all you ladies must be 1%ers! {/sarcasm}

I hope you never read the statistics on automobile accidents.  You'll never leave the house again. :confused:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of discussion about HIV in this thread, but I'm wondering if there is a greater threat coming in the form of drug-resistant chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphillis.  Chlamydia is orders-of-magnitude more contagious than HIV -- so a drug-resistant strain would be an incredible health problem.  Don't know if there are any reliable CDC stats out yet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lucy Kitten said:

The conversation is about condom usage and providers offering unsafe services were mentioned and you mentioned that BP is the place where that was happening which it wasn't. That was happening here.

So aside from LE you said there are numerous other reasons to avoid BP care to elaborate on those? I don't think my low class comment was all that far fetched. BP really had nothing at all to do with the conversation so why try and lay any blame on it all?

You know, Lucy? You're right. I'd thought the OP was speaking of an ad he found on BP. I'm in the wrong here and totally misunderstood his post. My comments referencing BP are totally misdirected and I redact them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RichardF said:

There's a lot of discussion about HIV in this thread, but I'm wondering if their is a greater threat coming in the form of drug-resistant chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphillis.  Chlamydia is orders-of-magnitude more contagious than HIV -- so a drug-resistant strain would be an incredible health problem.  Don't know if there are any reliable CDC stats out yet.

I was just tested on January 6th for all STDs. I was told there is a lot people testing positive for drug-resistant chlamydia. 

Edited by Nikki Holiday
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RichardF said:

There's a lot of discussion about HIV in this thread, but I'm wondering if there is a greater threat coming in the form of drug-resistant chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphillis.  Chlamydia is orders-of-magnitude more contagious than HIV -- so a drug-resistant strain would be an incredible health problem.  Don't know if there are any reliable CDC stats out yet.

It's pointless really, people can't even agree on stats. I think we cling to HIV because of it's incurable-ness.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bit Banger said:

Using PFA statistics to make your point is seldom a good idea.  But then if your point is fear & loathing, who cares - right?

{sarcasm} 40 clients/week * $500/session * 52 wks/year = $1MILLION+.  Damn - all you ladies must be 1%ers! {/sarcasm}

I hope you never read the statistics on automobile accidents.  You'll never leave the house again. :confused:

The point I was making was that just because the person is routinely tested (which is the justification used by several BBFS providers) it doesn't make uncovered sex safer considering it can take weeks or even months for a person w HIV to test positve.  So here that HIV+ person is having unprotected sex during their most infectious state and yet because we've all been tested we are believing we are safe.  Wrong. That was my point. Look if you want to condone the ignorance and irresponsible behavior , that is up to you. It doesn't make it any safer or any smarter. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bit Banger said:

Using PFA statistics to make your point is seldom a good idea.  But then if your point is fear & loathing, who cares - right?

{sarcasm} 40 clients/week * $500/session * 52 wks/year = $1MILLION+.  Damn - all you ladies must be 1%ers! {/sarcasm}

I hope you never read the statistics on automobile accidents.  You'll never leave the house again. :confused:

And there is one BBFS provider that comes to mind who doesn't charge a dime above the average hh rate of non-BBFS providers. Not that charging more makes it safer (it might reduce the number of participants I suppose).  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Danielle Rae said:

And there is one BBFS provider that comes to mind who doesn't charge a dime above the average hh rate of non-BBFS providers. Not that charging more makes it safer (it might reduce the number of participants I suppose).  

My opinion it doesn't make a difference, and I doubt it reduces the number of participants. The men who want to see her will book her no matter what. The guys who don't want to see her won't. The guys who see her, and don't use her as reference. and you ll never know. There are a lot more girls than just her. She probably booked out!

"Its her choice" to offer BBFS and fuck as many dudes as she wants to.

"Its her choice" to charge whatever rates she wants too.  

Edited by Nikki Holiday
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Danielle Rae said:

  I speak only for myself when I say that i have yet to experience sex that was worth the risk of spending the rest of my life with HIV.  

I completely agree with this. I won't see a provider if I see that she is offering BB. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Danielle Rae said:

The point I was making was that just because the person is routinely tested (which is the justification used by several BBFS providers) it doesn't make uncovered sex safer considering it can take weeks or even months for a person w HIV to test positve.  ...

On that point you'll get no disagreement from me. It is well worth remembering. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nikki Holiday said:

My opinion it doesn't make a difference, and I doubt it reduces the number of participants. The men who want to see her will book her no matter what. The guys who don't want to see her won't. The guys who see her, and don't use her as reference. and you ll never know. There are a lot more girls than just her. She probably booked out!

"Its her choice" to offer BBFS and fuck as many dudes as she wants to.

"Its her choice" to charge whatever rates she wants too.  

Obviously your opinion and this entire thread does make a difference, or I wouldn't be reading it over and over the last couple of days. You Nikki have personally directed me in the right direction on professional/personal matters. Don't sell yourself short. I don't think "Choice" here is a pro, but only a con. Obviously this is a thread that has ramifications on Twitter and other social sites as well. I've got to side with the majority here. Great thread.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mj76 said:

I completely agree with this. I won't see a provider if I see that she is offering BB. 

And there are many providers who won't see a guy if they find out they've seen a provider who offers BB regardless if it was covered or not. 
It becomes too much of a risk.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nikki Holiday said:

My opinion it doesn't make a difference, and I doubt it reduces the number of participants. The men who want to see her will book her no matter what. The guys who don't want to see her won't. The guys who see her, and don't use her as reference. and you ll never know. There are a lot more girls than just her. She probably booked out!

"Its her choice" to offer BBFS and fuck as many dudes as she wants to.

"Its her choice" to charge whatever rates she wants too.  

That is exactly what this thread is about - it may very well be "her choice" - unfortunately, the "consequences" of "her choice" are not limited to her alone.  In other words, her "choice" has the potential to harm many.   And for that reason, "her choices" are of my concern and everybody else's for that matter.  I am well aware that there are numerous reckless men who have no problem having bareback sex with prostitutes.  I get requests for it all of the time.  The last text I received asking if we could do it without a condom received this as my response -  "Sure! And when we're done having sex, we can share needles and get high!"  He didn't reply...duh! 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RichardF said:

There's a lot of discussion about HIV in this thread, but I'm wondering if there is a greater threat coming in the form of drug-resistant chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphillis.  Chlamydia is orders-of-magnitude more contagious than HIV -- so a drug-resistant strain would be an incredible health problem.  Don't know if there are any reliable CDC stats out yet.

You are right, RichardF - there's numerous other STD's besides HIV.  HPV is another biggie and those offering BBFS/CIP are putting themselves at great risk of this too!  Not to mention the lovely effects of BV (which was discussed in detail on this forum a few months back).  We obviously can't control what other individuals do but hopefully, if nothing else, threads like this help to educate and lead to better choices being made by at least some.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Danielle Rae said:

The point I was making was that just because the person is routinely tested (which is the justification used by several BBFS providers

  I want to clarify something. Since I am "THE  provider" who consistently encourages everyone to get tested, and I am routinely tested  for the past few years now, its NOT because I offer BB. Play safe, get tested. Good Night Everyone. 

Edited by Nikki Holiday
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Madame Web said:

And there are many providers who won't see a guy if they find out they've seen a provider who offers BB regardless if it was covered or not. 
It becomes too much of a risk.

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Madame Web said:

.......... seen a provider who offers BB regardless if it was covered or not. 
 

Never thought I would see physics discussed on TOB but here it is - quantum dick theory - if you know where it is it could be both bare and uncovered at the same time!!  Is there a double slit test verification??

:lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now