Safe Sex

[desertguy1954]

I was looking at an escorts ad the other day on Rentboy. He is one of the most in demand guys, great reviews and all of that. Where it has safe sex, he had in the past always had always safe, which is what I require. In his last update of his profile, he mentions nothing about safe sex practices. I then checked some other guys ads and started to notice the same thing. No comment where there had been one. What is going on, is this a new way to try and get new clients or has safe sex become a topic of discussion for some guys now.

[Bosguy]

I was looking at an escorts ad the other day on Rentboy. He is one of the most in demand guys, great reviews and all of that. Where it has safe sex, he had in the past always had always safe, which is what I require. In his last update of his profile, he mentions nothing about safe sex practices. I then checked some other guys ads and started to notice the same thing. No comment where there had been one. What is going on, is this a new way to try and get new clients or has safe sex become a topic of discussion for some guys now.

 

I have been noticing an increasing trend by escorts to just jump over this field. Can't explain why, but it is happening. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

Boston Bill

[Newly]

I think it's pretty easy to explain. Anyone looking at porn sites must have noticed how much more common bare backing has become, it's everywhere. Every time an escort has boundaries he cuts back on his potential client pool. For example, escorts who won't bottom cut off clients. Heck I remember when poor Griffen refused to do oral without a condom for safety reasons. He was quite right, although not high there is increased risk of HIV transmission when oral sex is performed without a condom, but that didn't matter. Since most forum members are personally convinced that that is an acceptable risk he was roundly hooted and, if memory served me right, he stopped insisting on it. There are lots of informed persons who would consider hiring an escort, regardless of how careful and safe he was, an unacceptable risk because of the huge number of sexual partners an escort has, and they're also right. Everything else being equal multiple partners increases the risk. I can certainly see how someone who depends on escorting for a living and who doesn't have other job options can decide that by taking the right drugs they can decrease their risk to a level that is acceptable for them. That may not be the choice we would make, but that is irrelevant. If escorts were rewarded by more clients when they were always safe there would be more and more of them insisting on it, not fewer and fewer. That being said, I'm not sure that would be a deal breaker for me. I would always insist on safe sex for my session, and so long as a condom is used in that particular session the risk of transmission is low enough that it is acceptable for me. I realize that many, many forum posters state that they would never hire an escort who ever has unsafe sex, but since no one knows what an escort is really doing with their partner, hookups, some clients, etc. it seems like a bit of a fantasy to think that limiting escorts in that manner really buys you much more safety. However, as always, to each his own.

[jimboivyo]

or maybe like some guys I know, he found out he was hiv+ and just stopped really caring

 

it happens. guys think that if they're already pos that from then on it's just a free for all

[rvwnsd]

I think it's pretty easy to explain. Anyone looking at porn sites must have noticed how much more common bare backing has become, it's everywhere. Every time an escort has boundaries he cuts back on his potential client pool. For example, escorts who won't bottom cut off clients. Heck I remember when poor Griffen refused to do oral without a condom for safety reasons. He was quite right, although not high there is increased risk of HIV transmission when oral sex is performed without a condom, but that didn't matter. Since most forum members are personally convinced that that is an acceptable risk he was roundly hooted and, if memory served me right, he stopped insisting on it. There are lots of informed persons who would consider hiring an escort, regardless of how careful and safe he was, an unacceptable risk because of the huge number of sexual partners an escort has, and they're also right. Everything else being equal multiple partners increases the risk. I can certainly see how someone who depends on escorting for a living and who doesn't have other job options can decide that by taking the right drugs they can decrease their risk to a level that is acceptable for them. That may not be the choice we would make, but that is irrelevant. If escorts were rewarded by more clients when they were always safe there would be more and more of them insisting on it, not fewer and fewer. That being said, I'm not sure that would be a deal breaker for me. I would always insist on safe sex for my session, and so long as a condom is used in that particular session the risk of transmission is low enough that it is acceptable for me. I realize that many, many forum posters state that they would never hire an escort who ever has unsafe sex, but since no one knows what an escort is really doing with their partner, hookups, some clients, etc. it seems like a bit of a fantasy to think that limiting escorts in that manner really buys you much more safety. However, as always, to each his own.

 

I completely agree with you. The first thought crossing my mind when I read this thread was "oral sex with vs without a condom," followed by "rimming." One man's "safe sex" is another's horribly unsafe practice. The only completely safe sex is no sex. If you want to know how (if) a guy protects himself ask him.

[Steven_Draker]

... There are lots of informed persons who would consider hiring an escort, regardless of how careful and safe he was, an unacceptable risk because of the huge number of sexual partners an escort has, and they're also right. Everything else being equal multiple partners increases the risk.

 

 

Number of Partners Doesn't Explain Gay HIV Rate

By Steven Reinberg (HealthDay Reporter)

 

THURSDAY, Sept. 13 (HealthDay News) -- The HIV epidemic among gay men can't be explained by their number of sexual partners, U.S. researchers report.

 

More than half the new HIV infections diagnosed in the United States in 2005 were among gay men, a team at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted. In addition, as many as one in five gay men living in cities may be HIV-positive.

 

But the sexual behaviors of gay and heterosexual men in the United States may not be as different as most people think, the researchers said.

 

In fact, two surveys found that most gay men have a similar rate of sex with unprotected partners compared to straight men or women.

 

"Just because gay men continue to have much higher levels of HIV, we can't jump to the conclusion that that means that they are promiscuous or that prevention messages aren't working," said lead researcher Steven Goodreau, an assistant professor of anthropology.

 

In the study, Goodreau and a colleague, Dr. Matthew R. Golden, analyzed data from two large population-based surveys. Using those figures, they estimated how many sex partners gay men and straight men and women have, and what number of gay men have either insertive or receptive anal sex, or both.

 

The report is published in the Sept. 12 online edition of Sexually Transmitted Infections.

 

"We found that even if gay men behave the same way heterosexuals do -- in terms of sexual partner numbers -- gay men would still have a huge HIV epidemic," Goodreau said.

 

Conversely, "even if heterosexual men behaved the way gay men do, they would not have a huge HIV epidemic," he added.

 

In fact, for straight men and women to experience an epidemic of HIV infection as widespread as that of gay men, they would have to have an average of almost five unprotected sexual partners every year -- almost three times the rate of the average gay male, Goodreau and Golden found.

 

So, why the higher HIV risk for gay men? "A couple of different things could give gay men an overall higher risk for HIV than heterosexuals," Goodreau said.

 

One reason HIV remains epidemic among gay men is that anal sex is much more conducive to the transmission of HIV transmission than is vaginal sex, the researcher said.

 

"That puts gay men at much higher risk overall," he said.

 

In addition, HIV transmission is more easily transmitted through the penis than via the vagina or the anus, Goodreau said. Heterosexuals tend to maintain the same role (insertive vs. receptive), while gay men can switch roles -- making the transmission of HIV more likely, he noted.

 

So, for gay men and straight men who have the same number of partners and have unprotected sex, gay men are more likely to transmit and receive HIV, Goodreau said. "That's why you can get huge epidemics among gay men and virtually none among heterosexual men," he said.

 

To end the HIV epidemic, gay men would need to have significantly lower rates of unprotected sex than those seen among the straight men, Goodreau believes.

 

One expert believes the study does have its flaws, however.

 

"The information here is mostly based on people's reports of their own behavior," said Philip Alcabes, an associate professor at the School of Health Sciences of Hunter College/City University of New York. "When trying to make use of information on self-reported sexual behavior, we have to remember that it isn't clear that anybody tells the truth," he said.

 

source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4508672&page=1

 

 

In other words, what matters is the type of "activity" you're engaging in over the number of partners.

[Juan Vancouver]

I was looking at an escorts ad the other day on Rentboy. He is one of the most in demand guys, great reviews and all of that. Where it has safe sex, he had in the past always had always safe, which is what I require. In his last update of his profile, he mentions nothing about safe sex practices. I then checked some other guys ads and started to notice the same thing. No comment where there had been one. What is going on, is this a new way to try and get new clients or has safe sex become a topic of discussion for some guys now.

 

I would be very careful and take anything in Rentboy with a grain of salt. Sadly their website is not the best or most reliable. It will for no reason at all change fields and disappear them randomly and a while after for no apparent reason the fields and right answers are back.

 

For this exact reason I have gone from having several piercings to being asian and back.

 

I know that asking every single escort directly would be a bother, but if you really are interested in a escort and there is a field that seems to not make sense, it would be best to call and enquire.

 

Hope this is helpful.

[PSCoach]

Not as a comment either way. I just believe factual information is always helpful when Making decisions. Here is some of latest scientific research on this exact topic:

 

According to a recent review of multiple studies, heterosexual serodiscordant couples have an almost non-existent risk of HIV transmission if the HIV-positive partner has an undetectable viral load as a consequence of successful antiretroviral (ARV) therapy, the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Policy (NATAP) reports. Presenting their findings at the Third International Workshop on HIV and Women in Toronto, researchers pooled data from six different studies of serodiscordant heterosexual couples, including the famous HPTN 052, which found a 96 percent risk reduction due to ARV therapy.

 

Three of the studies provided data on HIV transmission rates, ARV history and viral load of the HIV-positive partner. These studies included a combined 991 couples with 2,064 person-years of follow-up. The researchers found a transmission rate of 0.0 per 100 person years.

 

Three additional studies, including HPTN 052, had information on just rates of transmission and treatment history, covering 5,233 couples. Factoring in these studies with the other three, the researchers found a pooled transmission risk of 0.14 per 100 person years. In other words, if 1,000 serodiscordant couples in which the HIV-positive partner is on ARV therapy with an undetectable viral load had sex for one year, about one or two of the HIV-negative partners would become infected with the virus.

 

All four of the transmissions in the six studies took place before six months had passed since the HIV-positive partner began ARVs and therefore may not have yet reached an undetectable viral load. Taking this into account, the researchers conducted another analysis excluding the data from these transmissions. In this case, the risk of transmission was also 0.0 per 100 person years.

 

Sten H. Vermund, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Global Health at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, cautions that even those who maintain what appears to be an undetectable viral load may still have what he describes as “viral spikes” as a consequence of a vaccine, sexually transmitted infection or other acute infection. These spikes may intermittently put a partner at risk of HIV infection.

 

“If you want to have your risk of transmitting to others be zero, be on antiretrovirals religiously and also use condoms,” Vermund says.

 

To read the conference abstract, click here.

[Steven_Draker]

I was looking at an escorts ad the other day on Rentboy. He is one of the most in demand guys, great reviews and all of that. Where it has safe sex, he had in the past always had always safe, which is what I require. In his last update of his profile, he mentions nothing about safe sex practices. I then checked some other guys ads and started to notice the same thing. No comment where there had been one. What is going on, is this a new way to try and get new clients or has safe sex become a topic of discussion for some guys now.

 

I have noticed the same trend.

 

Some guys go even further with placing some key words in the ad copy like "uninhibited", "open to everything", "no taboo", "rawr" but conveniently "forget" to select an option in the "Safe Sex" filed. For me they have a very good reason not to make certain fields visible. Proceed with caution.