HIV+ Escorts

[leigh.bess.toad]

Many clients are reluctant because this is a hidden life-style are they are afraid to go to their regular doctor. They should go anonymously to a gay-oriented health clinic or MD and get thoroughly checked on a schedule depending on their hiring practices.

 

This is great advice funguy. The best advice given to me when I came out was by Legendary Dave -- find a doctor who knows LGBT health issues and who you can talk to about them. And I did. Boy the frank discussions we have had is just incredible (since he's "family" he knows the issues personally as well as professionally). The discussion we had about the risk of HIV transmission during fisting was no different than about a case of bronchitis --very matter of fact. I can't imagine not being able to fully and openly talk with your health care professional about any and all concerns you are having. If you can't talk to your own doctor, funguy is correct. Try to find a gay-oriented health clinic and go anonymously. But having that resource can be critical.

 

Great advice, funguy

[Bosguy]

If your comments are directed at me, they are certainly misdirected. I most certainly don't believe people who are HIV+ are damaged, but that was the analogy jimboivyo was making with the lettuce comparison. And he was the one who talked about escorts who are positive hiding their status and working. I believe there is a place for HIV+ escorts. They don't need to abstain from sex. Anymore than anyone else who is poz needs to abstain from sex. They just need to disclose their status. But there is a market and a need for poz escorts. As the post from doitb4ugo showed.

 

It was absolutely not directed at you. The word "damaged" was initially used by jimboivyo comparing HIV+ escorts to heads of lettuce. As a matter of fact, my intent was to totally agree with you. Very sorry about the fact my response seemed to refer to you

 

Boston Bill

[jimboivyo]

But if they are open about it, I agree with Juan that there is a place for them. But they are not damaged goods and to imply that is rather backwards. Any more than anyone else who is HIV+ is damaged goods. And if that is what you think, you really need to get some education. Unless you think someone with hypertension is damaged goods. Or diabetes. If an escort knows they are poz, hides it and works, and ends up exposing clients they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But there is a place for HIV+ escorts.

 

comparing hiv to hypertension or diabetes is irresponsible and a reason we have the problem we have now- a rise in new HIV infections due to kids thinking it's a manageable disease. it ain't.

 

it's still killing people every damn day and not just in the states. all over the world. sure medication helps prolong life, but it's not always a fix, has horrible side effects and not everyone lives in a place where it's affordable or tax-payer subsidized. please don't keep spreading the cracked idea that AIDS is so very easy to live with now. it's not.

 

escorts who are honest about it, sure, they have my respect for being honest, but I'm still never going to hire them. thats my choice and I'm happy to be given that choice by those out there who are honest

[leigh.bess.toad]

comparing hiv to hypertension or diabetes is irresponsible and a reason we have the problem we have now- a rise in new HIV infections due to kids thinking it's a manageable disease. it ain't.

 

it's still killing people every damn day and not just in the states. all over the world. sure medication helps prolong life, but it's not always a fix, has horrible side effects and not everyone lives in a place where it's affordable or tax-payer subsidized. please don't keep spreading the cracked idea that AIDS is so very easy to live with now. it's not.

 

escorts who are honest about it, sure, they have my respect for being honest, but I'm still never going to hire them. thats my choice and I'm happy to be given that choice by those out there who are honest

 

That is not what I was saying and you know it. You said someone with HIV was damaged goods. It is an illness, an infection. As is diabetes and hypertension. And I doubt you would say that someone with those conditions, which can also shorten your life are damaged goods. I never said any of them were easy. In fact, I've always argued, and have argued here, that people who say that having HIV is no worse than diabetes are being stupid because diabetes will also shorten your life and can make your life miserable.

 

Do you believe someone with HIV is damaged goods? Yes or No? That is the question. Because that is the analogy you made.

 

And you are certainly within your right not to hire someone who is HIV+. But having HIV+ escorts is good because it has a market, especially for HIV+ clients. And to dismiss them as damaged goods is what I found repulsive.

[Guy Fawkes]

As I pointed out in my reply to you, there is a difference between public disclosure and private disclosure.

 

What an escort says to you in private is perfectly ok, What you disclose in public is not. On my website the escort makes the decision.

 

I raised an associated issue with Daddy fairly recently when I noted in a published interview that when one of the guys was asked a direct question pertaining to their status that they answered it in a very suspicious way that suggested that they felt "great", but never really answered the question. I believe that risk to innocent bystanders (whether client or escort) trumps the privacy issue that Daddy sited. As he pointed out, the Federal Government would disagree with me and is invested in everyone's medical privacy. And though I can certainly appreciate that, in my mind it all goes out the window when people choose to involve others. Should a surgeon be permitted to operate if he has Parkinsons? Should lunatics have guns? And let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that all poz guys close up shop - just that they tell the truth.

[Steven_Draker]

I have to admit this whole thread freaked me out.

 

There's a quote:

 

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/49/da/ac/49daac564ac3f793c07150444ab8f214.jpg

 

the best way to manage risk is by education and understanding the various facts surrounding many of the medical consequences of sex between men (or maybe human beings).

Knowledge is always the best weapon. Know your staus and get tested regularly.

 

+100

 

Don't be afraid of HIV. Talk about it. Discuss openly safe sex practices, STD testing, HIV status with your sexual partners and with your escort.

[Guy Fawkes]

+100

 

As The Sin Sity Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence say: "No Guilt, No Fear!"

 

Don't be afraid of HIV. Talk about it. Discuss openly safe sex practices, STD testing, HIV status with your sexual partners and with your escort.

[Guest Starbuck]

It's fine to say that people are afraid of what they don't understand, but that's just an expression not some GREAT TRUTH. Sometimes they may also be afraid of what they DO understand. It's not hard to think of examples of either scenario.

 

It's nice to say that people who are HIV+ -- escorts, clients, others -- ought to disclose their status to prospective partners. Some of the responses here indicate that it's acceptable to be an HIV+ escort as long as this happens. But do any of us seriously believe that ALL HIV+ escorts (or clients, or others) make this disclosure in advance of every sexual encounter? If so, I've got another expression for you: Welcome to Fantasy Island.

[Strafe13]

It's fine to say that people are afraid of what they don't understand, but that's just an expression not some GREAT TRUTH. Sometimes they may also be afraid of what they DO understand. It's not hard to think of examples of either scenario.

 

It's nice to say that people who are HIV+ -- escorts, clients, others -- ought to disclose their status to prospective partners. Some of the responses here indicate that it's acceptable to be an HIV+ escort as long as this happens. But do any of us seriously believe that ALL HIV+ escorts (or clients, or others) make this disclosure in advance of every sexual encounter? If so, I've got another expression for you: Welcome to Fantasy Island.

 

That's why myself and so many others on here keep stressing that we should all treat every sex partner (in hiring or elsewhere) as potentially positive and protect ourselves by engaging in safer sex. The real fantasy is expecting to rely on people to disclose their status, particularly in the case of flings (including hiring), to near strangers. Even if your potential sex partner does disclose, and intends to do so truthfully, that doesn't mean the info is accurate, given the detection windows and potential for faulty memories as to last encounters. Rather than trying to screen escorts based on whether he may have done BB porn, or trying to guess at what they may do in private, recognize that it's in no way a reliable indicator of risk, and, to be quite honest, really sucks as a protective measure. (Not to mention the implicit bias here in that this conversation has operated under the presumption that the client himself is negative and knows his accurate status, such that he's the only one at risk.).

 

Part of being a responsible sexual adult is educating oneself and then protecting oneself, using accepted medical practices, if one chooses to engage in sex. Either do that, or remain celibate. With respect to Mr. Draker's quotation, I think he meant, in conjunction with Mr. Eisenhower's candid posts, that it's actually relatively simple to protect oneself from HIV exposure, and knowing that, one should not be paralyzed with fear at the thought of being sexually active, either with escorts, or other people.

[DeNeufaille]

Hum, my last post here: Considering escorts, the "safe" sex option is a must. Hum, only to KNOW that a particular escort barebacks in his private and professional encounters. As a client, best to assume all "professionals" are poz and really all "professionals" should assume all "johns" are poz.... Be careful guys of faulty adds: just because a guy states "safe sex only" on the profile does not mean REALITY.

[Newly]

Part of the issue here is simple math. Even using a condom and taking every possible precaution this is not 100% safe, under some circumstances oral sex may transmit HIV; condoms break and slip, etc. Interestingly enough douching prior to anal sex increases the risk of transmission. With people who have a limited number of partners the risks are still minuscule, but when these odds get applied to people who have huge numbers of sexual encounters and when the client has multiple partners the risks are no longer so small. And let's face it, if an escort declares that he is HIV+ his potential client pool will be reduced by a huge amount. We're talking about someone's livelihood, so it becomes easy for them to justify hiding it by rationalizing that they're always safe - which I really can't blame them for. As multiple posters have pointed out there are many other diseases such as Hepatitis C (of course there may be an effective treatment for that now at a cost of about 90k) which can also be contracted. So it's simply a matter of realizing that this is a bit like Russian Roulette but that the gun has a barrel that holds many bullets, not six. As long as one assumes that everyone is infected and takes proper precautions your odds are lowered, and you need to determine what your risk tolerance is. The only wrinkle here is that a lot of posters have wives or other partners that aren't aware of the risk they are taking - ethically that is a whole other question.

[Guest Starbuck]

...The real fantasy is expecting to rely on people to disclose their status, particularly in the case of flings (including hiring), to near strangers. Even if your potential sex partner does disclose, and intends to do so truthfully, that doesn't mean the info is accurate, given the detection windows and potential for faulty memories as to last encounters.

 

I wonder if this changes the minds of posters who have said that working as an HIV+ escort is an acceptable practice AS LONG AS THERE IS HONESTY AND FULL DISCLOSURE. I already expressed my own opinion that none of us could possibly believe THAT happens all the time. Strafe13 takes it a step further in pointing out the risk of inaccuracy even among the best-intentioned.

 

...it's actually relatively simple to protect oneself from HIV exposure, and knowing that, one should not be paralyzed with fear at the thought of being sexually active, either with escorts, or other people.

 

I doubt that many of the men on this forum, escorts or clients, would advocate celibacy for those who are HIV+. Many of us may have HIV+ friends who have managed (carefully) to live with their disease, have sex lives, even find life partners. That's very different from being an HIV+ sex worker, having hundreds of sexual contacts a year and many more partners overall than most of us will come close to.

[seeker630]

But if they are open about it, I agree with Juan that there is a place for them. But they are not damaged goods and to imply that is rather backwards. Any more than anyone else who is HIV+ is damaged goods. And if that is what you think, you really need to get some education. Unless you think someone with hypertension is damaged goods. Or diabetes. If an escort knows they are poz, hides it and works, and ends up exposing clients they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But there is a place for HIV+ escorts.

 

Well said!

[Steven_Draker]

Starbuck, as the originator of this thread, do you believe that HIV+ escorts should not be in the business?

[Steven_Draker]

With people who have a limited number of partners the risks are still minuscule, but when these odds get applied to people who have huge numbers of sexual encounters and when the client has multiple partners the risks are no longer so small.

 

You can have just a couple of sexual partners, lower your guard only once and contract HIV.

 

On the other hand you can have hundreds of partners, always use protection and remain negative and never catch a STD.

 

"Whether you're HIV positive or negative, you're responsible for your own sexual health. HIV+ people have the responsibility to inform their status to their partners before either engaging in sexual intercourse or in relationships so the negative person has the option to either be in a relationship with the infected person or not. It is also the responsibility of the negative person to engage in safer sex or request that both you and your partner be tested. Responsibility is a two way street."

 

Two questions for everyone:

 

- Would you have protected sex with someone who tells you he's HIV positive? His viral load is undetectable if that matters.

 

- A super hot guy (the man of your dreams) is claiming to be negative. He pushes on barebacking and reassures you that there's no risk. Would you proceed and have unprotected sex with him?

[Guest Starbuck]

Starbuck, as the originator of this thread, do you believe that HIV+ escorts should not be in the business?[/color]

 

Steven, let me repeat part of what I posted earlier:

 

I doubt that many of the men on this forum, escorts or clients, would advocate celibacy for those who are HIV+. Many of us may have HIV+ friends who have managed (carefully) to live with their disease, have sex lives, even find life partners. That's very different from being an HIV+ sex worker, having hundreds of sexual contacts a year and many more partners overall than most of us will come close to.

 

Accidents happen -- I think we can all agree on that -- you've made the point yourself, Steven, in another post on this thread about lowering one's guard just once . From there, it's simple statistics to understand that the greater the incidence of his sexual activity, the greater the chance that an HIV+ individual (an escort, a client or any other person) could transmit the virus. (Ditto for other STDs.) We all accept some measure of risk in this and other areas of our lives; we all have to decide how much makes sense.

 

In my own opinion, anyone with HIV--again: an escort, a client or anyone else--should limit his number of sexual partners to reduce the chance of transmitting the virus and to protect himself from the possibility of re-infection. No matter what other precautions are taken, I don't see it as a fair, reasonable or ethically appropriate choice to be both HIV+ and to work as an escort. I don't see it as a fair, reasonable or ethically appropriate choice for ANYONE with a sexually transmittable disease to have hundreds of sexual partners.

 

Very likely, there are working escorts who are among the best-informed and most sophisticated fellows on the planet when it comes to safe sex practices. It's only my guess, but I suspect that some of them who don't want to make statements about what other escorts should do would choose not to continue escorting should they become HIV+. Perhaps that should have been my original question--a more personal one, rather than a general one.

[instudiocity]

 

Two questions for everyone:

 

- Would you have protected sex with someone who tells you he's HIV positive? His viral load is undetectable if that matters.

Yes.

He knows more about it than I do. He's consulting a physician. We're using protection/protective techniques.

 

- A super hot guy (the man of your dreams) is claiming to be negative. He pushes on barebacking and reassures you that there's no risk. Would you proceed and have unprotected sex with him?

OH HELL NO!!! No possible way. Not until he's moved in, taken HIV tests for 12 months and I know the WHO/WHAT/WHEN/WHERE/HOW/HOW MANY he's been doing for the entire 12 months. Poor guy would know all the verses of "Me and My Shadow" because I'd be following his ass around for a year before I gave him unprotected sex. (emphasis on the GAVE)

[instudiocity]

Steven, let me repeat part of what I posted earlier:

 

I doubt that many of the men on this forum, escorts or clients, would advocate celibacy for those who are HIV+. Many of us may have HIV+ friends who have managed (carefully) to live with their disease, have sex lives, even find life partners. That's very different from being an HIV+ sex worker, having hundreds of sexual contacts a year and many more partners overall than most of us will come close to.

 

Accidents happen -- I think we can all agree on that -- you've made the point yourself, Steven, in another post on this thread about lowering one's guard just once . From there, it's simple statistics to understand that the greater the incidence of his sexual activity, the greater the chance that an HIV+ individual (an escort, a client or any other person) could transmit the virus. (Ditto for other STDs.) We all accept some measure of risk in this and other areas of our lives; we all have to decide how much makes sense.

 

In my own opinion, anyone with HIV--again: an escort, a client or anyone else--should limit his number of sexual partners to reduce the chance of transmitting the virus and to protect himself from the possibility of re-infection. No matter what other precautions are taken, I don't see it as a fair, reasonable or ethically appropriate choice to be both HIV+ and to work as an escort. I don't see it as a fair, reasonable or ethically appropriate choice for ANYONE with a sexually transmittable disease to have hundreds of sexual partners.

 

Very likely, there are working escorts who are among the best-informed and most sophisticated fellows on the planet when it comes to safe sex practices. It's only my guess, but I suspect that some of them who don't want to make statements about what other escorts should do would choose not to continue escorting should they become HIV+. Perhaps that should have been my original question--a more personal one, rather than a general one.

I sense that you're working out your beliefs concerning this subject, because you really seem conflicted and confused at the moment.

[Strafe13]

You can have just a couple of sexual partners, lower your guard only once and contract HIV.

 

On the other hand you can have hundreds of partners, always use protection and remain negative and never catch a STD. [/color]

 

"Whether you're HIV positive or negative, you're responsible for your own sexual health. HIV+ people have the responsibility to inform their status to their partners before either engaging in sexual intercourse or in relationships so the negative person has the option to either be in a relationship with the infected person or not. It is also the responsibility of the negative person to engage in safer sex or request that both you and your partner be tested. Responsibility is a two way street."

 

Two questions for everyone:

 

- Would you have protected sex with someone who tells you he's HIV positive? His viral load is undetectable if that matters.

 

- A super hot guy (the man of your dreams) is claiming to be negative. He pushes on barebacking and reassures you that there's no risk. Would you proceed and have unprotected sex with him?

 

I mirror instudiocity's responses to Mr. Draker's questions. As to #1, I assume that I have already had sex with plenty of positive guys, and so as long as we're using protection properly, such a low and managed risk is something I'm willing to accept. Again, I REFUSE to let fear of a disease render me celibate. Plus, if one's viral load is undetectable, that even further mitigates the risk.

 

As to #2, the rational answer is of course, "NO!" I'd like to think that I'd always make the rational and responsible choice. But human beings sometimes let their emotions lead them down foolish and/or dangerous paths. Thankfully, I've not been presented with this particular scenario. But I'd hope that if he's truly the man of my dreams (I understand that was used as a euphemism for most physically attractive), he'd never push that on me, and we'd only entertain that discussion after being in a loving, committed, and monogamous relationship for a long time.

[Steven_Draker]

In my own opinion, anyone with HIV--again: an escort, a client or anyone else--should limit his number of sexual partners to reduce the chance of transmitting the virus and to protect himself from the possibility of re-infection. No matter what other precautions are taken, I don't see it as a fair, reasonable or ethically appropriate choice to be both HIV+ and to work as an escort. I don't see it as a fair, reasonable or ethically appropriate choice for ANYONE with a sexually transmittable disease to have hundreds of sexual partners.

 

I wouldn't worry much about having sex with a poz guy, as long as he's on HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy), his viral load is undetectable and proper protection is used.

 

A study has proven that "HIV-positive individuals on effective antiretroviral therapy and without sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are sexually non-infectious" source

 

Everyone has his own confront zone, and many negative guys have stated here (and elsewhere) that they wouldn't have sex with someone whom they KNOW is HIV+. I understand and respect their choice and boundaries, but I also believe that we shouldn't perpetuate beliefs that aim to vilify poz folks. Stigma is not a cure.

 

I'd be much more worried about someone with an unknown status, who hasn't been tested in a long time or has a history of bareback sex.

[Guest Starbuck]

I sense that you're working out your beliefs concerning this subject, because you really seem conflicted and confused at the moment.

 

I've re-read what I posted, instudiocity, and don't know why I seem "conflicted" to you. I'll just say again:

 

No matter what other precautions are taken, I don't see it as a fair, reasonable or ethically appropriate choice to be both HIV+ and to work as an escort. I don't see it as a fair, reasonable or ethically appropriate choice for ANYONE with a sexually transmittable disease to have hundreds of sexual partners."

 

If my post seems muddled or "confused" to you--sorry--I gave it my best shot.

 

I don't agree with all the opinions that have been expressed on this thread, nor expect everyone to agree with mine, but this is a good chance to say that I appreciate the chance to hear and consider what others think and I value a forum in which we can discuss different perspectives on an important subject. The opportunity to hear each other and respectfully debate, to share information and be at least a little bit open to changing our minds, is just what a forum should be. That's enough from me, but I hope we'll hear from other guys who haven't yet weighed in on the topic.

 

(For those who haven't noticed it, there's also an interesting thread on HIV--started yesterday by Gman--in The Lounge.)

[instudiocity]

Your original post... where you instead of asking a question you challenged escorts to take your pledge...

...I wonder if any of you--particularly those who have spoken up about the importance of protecting your own health and that of your clients--would say here and now that any man who knows he is HIV+ should not be escorting.

 

Your response post to me, where your request to pledge became an unfair, unreasonable and unethical (on your part, imho) demand upon the behavior of others...all while ignoring the multitude of other diseases discussed on this thread that are transmitted through personal interaction.

I've re-read what I posted, instudiocity, and don't know why I seem "conflicted" to you. I'll just say again:

 

No matter what other precautions are taken, I don't see it as a fair, reasonable or ethically appropriate choice to be both HIV+ and to work as an escort. I don't see it as a fair, reasonable or ethically appropriate choice for ANYONE with a sexually transmittable disease to have hundreds of sexual partners."

While you seem to think that you can command other's behavior, you desire the liberty to behave any damn way you so choose? That's confused and conflicted thinking.

 

Sorry, but I don't believe you've any right to say what others can do, including HIV+ escorts working. Secondly, it is the recently reiterated policy of Daddy's that HIV+ escorts are the only people who can disclose their status on this board (just restating that for clarity, you haven't gone there yet). Thirdly, just my opinion of your posts...confused and conflicted because I believe you're holding others to a standard you wouldn't necessarily follow.

[MiamiLooker]

source[/url]

[/color]

 

The study may suggest what you say, but does it actually prove it? A different opinion on the study you cite:

 

http://americablog.com/2013/07/safe-sex-necessary-undetectable-hiv-viral-load.html

[MiamiLooker]

Sorry, but I don't believe you've any right to say what others can do, including HIV+ escorts working. Secondly, it is the recently reiterated policy of Daddy's that HIV+ escorts are the only people who can disclose their status on this board (just restating that for clarity, you haven't gone there yet). Thirdly, just my opinion of your posts...confused and conflicted because I believe you're holding others to a standard you wouldn't necessarily follow.

 

He's simply stating his opinion, just like you're doing.

[Steven_Draker]

A different opinion on the study you cite ...

 

In case you missed it above. Here we go again:

 

as long as he's on HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy), his viral load is undetectable and proper protection is used.[/color]