Sexually Transmitted Diseases

[Tiny12]

Lysander,

I wasn't aware there was a syphilis epidemic among prostitutes in Argentina, and that definitely would effect whether I'd do bareback sex there. Some people aren't entirely aware of the risks. For example, many believe there's zero risk of female-to-male transmission of HIV, and are likely to do exactly what you recommend against -- go out and have bareback sex with some crack w*hore when they've got a sore on their penis. You seem like a smart guy (honestly) but I think you were under a mistaken impression when you said the chances of male-to-female transmission were orders of magnitude higher.

I've normally used condoms with prostitutes, but I've fallen off the wagon maybe about 5 or 6 times during my life. Each time after I'd had sex with 5 or 10 women I'd come down with something. The last time it caused major problems in my relationship with my fiancee. I don't have a moral agenda. If I could go back and start from scratch I would always use condoms, something I've been able to stick to for the last three years, even though I much prefer sex without one. I say that not only because of personal experience, but also because of what I've read about STD's.

And after reading Sidney's posts, I may give up eating strange pussy too. Thanks Sidney! It always kind of reminded me of rotten fish anyway.

[Lysander]

Tiny12 Wool1,

I not sure what your motives are for citing these various statistics now. Do you think there's anything new or relevant that most people who take an interest in these matters were not already aware of? Some kind of hidden moral agenda perhaps. My guess is that most members of this forum are aware of the risks and are acting accordingly. Why don't you do the same.

[Tiny12]

Lysander,

That's not an issue for the Thai and African studies referenced in the Ugandan paper, which were for female-to-male transmission. I've read that male-to-female transmission is about 2X to 3X more likely than female-to-male transmission. I think that comes from following,

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=104...OR-enlargePage

and

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1881672

That's good advice on ulcerated vaginas and bleeding (or ulcerated) penises. From the African study, "A cumulative 43% of uncircumcised men who acquired an ulcer seroconverted to HIV-1 after a single sexual exposure." Based on the second article above, you might want to add don't have unprotected sex when a woman is menstruating. Or the obvious -- use a condom.

I don't think a study that just showed 1 case of female-to-male transmission would have been big enough to have much confidence in. But admittedly the two I'm referencing weren't a lot larger. One of them did identify 19 instances of female-to-male transmission though. The other one, I don't know -- I'm too cheap and lazy to buy the paper and just have the abstract.

[Lysander]

Tiny12

All the evidence from many studies suggests that the risks of HIV transmission during normal sex are orders of magnitude greater from male to female then from female to male.

Here is the abstract of one of the studies cited in the introduction your Ugandan paper. The conclusion at the end is the interesting bit.

N. S. Padian, S. C. Shiboski and N. P. Jewell.

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco.

"Objective.--To examine rates of heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and associated risk factors and to determine the relative efficiency of female-to-male and male-to-female transmission. DESIGN.--Survey of infected individuals and their heterosexual partners recruited since 1985. SETTING.--Participants were recruited from various HIV counseling and testing sites throughout California but were generally interviewed and tested in their homes. PARTICIPANTS.--Data from 379 couples at entry to the study are reported: 72 male partners of infected women and 307 female partners of infected men. The infected index case had a well-established source of risk; couples were eliminated if the direction of transmission could not be established. The majority of couples were monogamous since 1978, white, and in their 30s. Most partners did not know their serostatus at entry into the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE.--HIV serostatus in the exposed sexual partner. RESULTS.--We observed one probable instance (1%) of female-to-male transmission compared with 20% transmission rates in the female partners of infected men. All couples were sampled in the same way. Male index cases were more likely to be symptomatic than female index cases. CONCLUSION.--The odds of male-to-female transmission were significantly greater than female-to-male transmission. The one case of female-to-male transmission was unique in that the couple reported numerous unprotected sexual contacts and noted several instances of vaginal and penile bleeding during intercourse. "

Best to avoid fucking an ulcerated pussy when you have a bleeding cock, it seems. The Ugandan study comes to a similar sort of conclusion.

[Tiny12]

Lysander and Wool1, The Introduction in this paper provides probabilities of transmission from a HIV-positive partner from a number of studies:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/gray2/

The rate of transmission among couples in the U. S. And Europe ranged from.0001 (.01%) to.0014 (0.14%) For studies involving men who had sex with prostitutes in northern Thailand and Africa, the rates were 5.6% and 10%! The Thai and African numbers were for female-to-male transmission.

Of course there are other considerations. Some believe the strain of HIV in northern Thailand is more virulent than others. As you know if a person has other STD's, it increases probability of transmission. What's a little scary, a lot of mongers have untreated STD's -- either herpes, and they know it, or chlamydia or gonorrhea and they don't. So while I don't think we're running the same risk as the Africans, it's still higher than the normal male population in the U. S. And Europe.

[Lysander]

The simple truth is that if you have lots of sexual partners (paid or unpaid) then you stand a good chance sooner or later of acquiring some kind of STD. With a condom the chances are reduced, but not eliminated. Everyone has to decide for himself whether the pleasures are worth the risk (and the expense) My advice to anyone taking up this sport would be. First and foremost, think of your own domestic situation - what are the possible consequences if you were to pass on a STD to your nearest and dearest? If you're the nervous type, or suffer from guilt problems, then maybe you should stick to some safer sport like golf or stamp collecting.

[Lysander]

I still do not know what conclusion to draw. Assuming we are talking about BB vaginal intercourse, is the probability 0.0063 if you fuck a random Kenyan woman, or if you fuck a Kenyan woman known to be HIV positive?

Bob

From other studies it is known that probably as many as 50% of kenyan prostitutes at the time of this study were HIV positive, and many will also have had other STDs and other health and nutrition problems - a significant additional risk factor. Furthermore, you can imagine what the conditions are like in the type of kenyan brothel frequented by truck drivers (probably no running water in many) and also the average state of health of many of the truck drivers themselves (most of them uncircumcised) Under the circumstances, it is perhaps amazing that the chances of acquiring HIV in each encounter was estimated to be as low as 1 in 160.

[Aqualung]

I still do not know what conclusion to draw. Assuming we are talking about BB vaginal intercourse, is the probability 0.0063 if you fuck a random Kenyan woman, or if you fuck a Kenyan woman known to be HIV positive?

Bob

Or if you fuck a Kenian truck driver! Very confusing! Of course they are supposed to be confusing!

[AllIWantIsLove]

I still do not know what conclusion to draw. Assuming we are talking about BB vaginal intercourse, is the probability 0.0063 if you fuck a random Kenyan woman, or if you fuck a Kenyan woman known to be HIV positive?

Bob

[Lysander]

Thanks for that cryptic bit of scaremongering. Here is the abstract of the research study on which that figure was based so that forum members can draw their own conclusions.

"Background. A lack of male circumcision has been associated with increased risk of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) acquisition in a number of studies, but questions remain as to whether confounding by behavioral practices explains these results. The objective of the present study was to model per-sex act probabilities of female-to-male HIV-1 transmission (i. E. Infectivity) for circumcised and uncircumcised men, by use of detailed accounts of sexual behavior in a population with multiple partnerships. Methods. Data were collected as part of a prospective cohort study of HIV-1 acquisition among 745 Kenyan truck drivers. Sexual behavior with wives, casual partners, and prostitutes was recorded at quarterly follow-up visits. Published HIV-1 seroprevalence estimates among Kenyan women were used to model HIV-1 per-sex act transmission probabilities. Results. The overall probability of HIV-1 acquisition per sex act was 0.0063 (95% confidence interval, 0.0035-0.0091) Female-to-male infectivity was significantly higher for uncircumcised men than for circumcised men (0.0128 vs. 0.0051; P=.04) The effect of circumcision was robust in subgroup analyses and across a wide range of HIV-1 prevalence estimates for sex partners. Conclusions. After accounting for sexual behavior, we found that uncircumcised men were at a >2-fold increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 per sex act, compared with circumcised men. Moreover, female-to-male infectivity of HIV-1 in the context of multiple partnerships may be considerably higher than that estimated from studies of HIV-1-serodiscordant couples. These results may explain the rapid spread of the HIV-1 epidemic in settings, found throughout much of Africa, in which multiple partnerships and a lack of male circumcision are common."

[Wool1]

"The overall probability of HIV-1 acquisition per sex act was 0.0063 (95% confidence interval, 0.0035-0.0091)"

A gun with 160 cylinders and one bullet.

[Tiny12]

Very true, even if you use a condom. Someone I know very well is living proof.

Normal hetero mongering seldom leads to HIV but could lead to incurable herpes that will be hard to explain to your spouse.

[El Perro]

God love Erika, but that girl is outta control!

Parse the numbers any way you like, but HIV is damn hard to get (particularly for the male) during heterosexual sex. In my mind there is absolutely no question that even reputable people in the prevention field tend to exxagerate the risk of contracting HIV and other various STDs. The reasons are many. The upshot is not to fall prey to the hysteria, live your sexual life the way you want, and take the precautions you personally feel comfortable with.

[Punter 127]

I saw Erika the Mexicana the other day and she is pregnant again.

[Dickhead]

I shall now come out of retirement because it is evident that we need to speak frankly about this issue.

These academic researchers are not obtaining the data directly from primary sources. I have spent 35 years in the trenches, mongering on the front lines. Obviously I am not dead yet as dead men make few posts.

I have fucked around 500 prostitutes, beginning in 1972. Back in 1972, no one would have considered paying for sex with a condom. Early in 1972 I contracted gonorrhea from my supposed "girlfriend" and I recognized the symptoms right away, got a shot, and it was gone in a couple of days. I would state that I would rather have gonorrhea than a bad head cold.

Then throughout the 70s bareback everything was the norm, and I fucked 40 or 50 prostitutes and I never got anything. Then came herpes. Herpes is real but the hysteria surrounding it led to insanity such as the belief that if we shared a joint you could get my herpes, or if you accidentally drank out of my glass. No. Fortunately I was living with a physician's assistant at the time so I knew the truth. She HAD herpes and I fucked her for seven years and I never got it.

In the late 70s I was still fucking a lot of prostitutes bareback, notably at the Mustang Ranch in Reno. They tested them for gonorrhea and nothing else that I know of. By then I had already had gonorrhea and I was like, "so what." Then in the early 90s you got AIDS and the whole picture changed. Cover up everything, all the time. I remember when Magic Johnson said he had AIDS. Correct me if I am wrong but that was 16 years ago and he is not dead and came back to play in the NBA at a high level. Furthermore his wife Cookie is not HIV positive.

Then you got into this bullshit about if you have a GF then you need to go get a test, wait six months, test again, and then you can go for it uncovered. Who in the fuck is going to have a steady one-year relationship with all totally covered sex, including oral? Not too many people. So it is a state of denial.

In 2003 I visited BA for the first time and had a number of BBBJs with no harmful consequences. Then I had a hooker tell me, "If you are sure you cannot have kids, then we can dispense with these condoms." And we did. This was a common, ordinary, garden variety hooker with no mention of exclusivity. In fact she ended up pregnant by another guy so it seems likely she was having unprotected sex with others.

Then in 2004 I moved here and I never suggested or pushed for unprotected sex, but I did not turn it down either. I got syphilis. It was disgusting and painful but it went away just fine with a course of antibiotics. What sucked about that was contacting the other partners and telling them they needed to get checked out. I wonder how many did. I am sure in my mind who gave it to me but I could just as well be wrong. I figured after contacting all the other unprotected partners I would be pretty well ostracized.

Nope. In fact, two of the five or so I contacted subsequently had bareback sex with me again, and of course I with them. In 2005 I again got gonorrhea, most likely from the well-known Erika the Mexicana. We had a conversation where she said, "Well, AIDS is very unlikely from hetero sex and anything else is a shot in the ass." I believe that to be a direct quote. This time I recognized it even faster, got on the antibiotics even quicker, and it was gone in three days (but you still have to take the whole 7 to 10 day course of pills)

All this time I was still getting HIV tests every six months, and even more often as a few gals suggested that if we got tested together we could go bareback and I did that testing thing I believe it was three times. Of course in two of those cases we had already been doing it bareback so it then makes it a bit scary to go get the results.

Between mid-2005 and now, I had bareback full sex with around twenty or twenty-five more women. This happened in privados, it happened with women from Catto's, Ness, Oro, Nuevo Estilo, all kinds of places. Importantly (listen up here fellas! It happened with some women with whom other mongers thought they had a "special relationship." It happened with women who had live in boyfriends. It happened with women whom I knew were also having unprotected sex with other friends of mine. I did threesomes and had bareback full sex with both at the same time. It ALL happened.

And, I have been tested three times in the past six months, all test results negative. So let's not kid ourselves. Think about this:

1) If she gave it up to you bareback, she gave it up to me bareback.

2) HIV is pretty hard to get through normal hetero sex, or I would have it.

3) Given 1 and 2 if I had it, you would have it.

4) You could get HIV and die. You could get HIV and not die. You will die anyway.

5) I am not married but I have seen with my own eyes married guys having unprotected sex with prostitutes. That seems a bit more risky to me on a number of levels.

I have talked about this with most of the women I have had unprotected sex with and I hear various responses, but we need to realize that we are better educated and more well-informed about things than they might be. These are tough conversations to have. The bottom line is that sex is more fun and feels better without condoms than it does with condoms. Is it worth the risk? Only you and your partner can decide, and your partner might be pretty ignorant and uneducated.

My conclusion is that AIDS is primarily a disease affecting homosexuals and needle sharing drug addicts, but there is certainly a non-zero possibility of getting it by mongering. I think we as mongers need to realize that. I bet you that a lot of guys on this board have fucked some of the same women I have fucked without a condom, without a condom. We have all seen pictures of someone's supposed "girlfriend" being fucked by someone else without a condom. So let's not fool ourselves.

Evaluate the risk. Think about your situation. If you are married, it is way more irresponsible to have unprotected sex. If you have children, it is way more irresponsible. The younger you are, the more any risk of HIV will affect your future. We older mongers have less future, undeniably.

But don't fall victim to hysteria. Normal hetero mongering seldom leads to HIV but could lead to incurable herpes that will be hard to explain to your spouse. And it is pretty easy to get the clap, genital warts, blah blah. However and importantly, you could get these just as easily from an unpaid one-night stand.

Sincerely,

Richard T. Head, Esq.