BBFS w/a young hottie
- Thread starter Marcus1960
- Start date
Ah, but we aren't talking about an individual case. We are talking about hobbyists making decisions that will very likely affect how they behave over the course of their hobbying lives. Since we can't know the exact circumstances of every individual interaction, all we can do is make the best decision based on the numbers available.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if we decide "this is an individual case so the statistics are meaningless", then we would have to behave as if there is no difference in risk between any 2 activities. Kissing would be the same risk as BB Greek. (Which is actually true if neither party has any diseases.)
Correct me if I am wrong, but if we decide "this is an individual case so the statistics are meaningless", then we would have to behave as if there is no difference in risk between any 2 activities. Kissing would be the same risk as BB Greek. (Which is actually true if neither party has any diseases.)
Last edited:
with all due respect, your discussion on statistical anomalies is putting me to sleep. the real discussion should be about the question posed in the initial post.....yes bbfs is out there, and seems more in the open than ever
as a matter of fact, i dont visit BP providers but like to call around especially when i see pretty pics and gauge the current market rates and services......surprisingly there are 2 providers, one black one white posting on BP currently in commack howard jognson, and on initial phone call when i inquired about extras was told that greek was 100 additional and bbfs was 100 extra.
that was on phone calls.....no questions if i was LE , nothing...and i asked them if they were LE. and let me be clear, i asked the question clearly and repeated myself and got girl to repeat answer to make sure there was no confusion.....
so bottomline, whatever u want is out there
as a matter of fact, i dont visit BP providers but like to call around especially when i see pretty pics and gauge the current market rates and services......surprisingly there are 2 providers, one black one white posting on BP currently in commack howard jognson, and on initial phone call when i inquired about extras was told that greek was 100 additional and bbfs was 100 extra.
that was on phone calls.....no questions if i was LE , nothing...and i asked them if they were LE. and let me be clear, i asked the question clearly and repeated myself and got girl to repeat answer to make sure there was no confusion.....
so bottomline, whatever u want is out there
Hm, Waterclone might want to take a class in statistics and probability, and people might want to read the Wikipedia article more closely to figure out what terms actually mean. For starters, "Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse" refers to the act of a woman receiving a penis in her vagina, so that statistic is the WOMAN's risk of contracting HIV from an infected man. The risk for a man who has sex with an infected woman is listed under "insertive penile-vaginal intercourse" and is estimated at 5 infections per 10,000 exposures, not 10. In other words, the risk of infection for a woman who has sex with an infected man is twice the risk for a man who has sex with an infected woman. (This makes sense when you think about it. The woman's vagina is the receptacle into which most of the fluids are deposited.)
Also, the risk that Waterclone mentions of 1/10,000 from "fellating a man" is the risk which a woman experiences when she gives a blowjob to an infected man. The risk which a man experiences when he GETS a blowjob from an infected woman is listed separately under "man being felated." Once again, the risk of that sex act to a man is only half as high as the risk to the woman: 0.5/10,000.
These numbers make the risks sound low, and they are low for an individual sex act. The thing to bear in mind, however, is that people don't just have sex once. The number of people you have sex with, and the frequency with which you have sex, can amplify a small risk into a significantly larger one. The way this works out is that there is higher risk for women who work as sex providers than for men who visit sex providers, and of course the risks are very very low for people who are monogamous.
You also have to take into account the percentage of the population that is infected with HIV. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimates that currently about 1 million Americans are infected -- roughly 1 percent of the population. However, the risk is not uniformly distributed. Men who have sex with other men account for nearly half of all people infected in the U.S. (even though gay and bisexual men only account for 4% of the U.S. population). Women account for about 1/4 of all HIV infections, so the likelihood of an individual woman having HIV is about 1 in 600. Obviously the risks are higher for women who sell sex for a living or who engage in other risky activities such as intravenous drug use. I'm not going to bother trying to carefully estimate the breakout of those risks, but I think it's safe to guesstimate that the likelihood of a woman being infected is less than 1/1,000 if she does not fall into one of those higher-risk categories.
On this basis, we can see that the risk for a man who only has sex with his wife is quite low. Even if he doesn't know everything about her past and current sex life, he can reasonably assume that there is a less than 1/1,000 chance that she is infected. Let's assume that they have an enthusiastic sex life and fuck three times a day. That works out to roughly 1,000 acts of intercourse per year, so his risk of contracting HIV during a year of fucking her is 1,000 time the risk of her being infected (1/1,000) times the transmission rate per instance of vaginal intercourse (5/10,000). His annual risk of infection is therefore 5/10,000. Even if they have sex at that rate for 50 years, he only has a 2.5% chance of getting HIV.
Now consider the case of a woman who works as an escort and has bareback sex with 5 different men per day. It's reasonable to assume that the risk of each of those men being infected is higher than the general population, so let's estimate that 1 in 50 of her clients has HIV. Her risk for infection during a single act of intercourse is still quite low (1/50 X 10/10,000 = 1/50,000). Over the course of a year, however, she has sex about 1,500 times, so her actual risk of contracting HIV is about 4% per year, which means that in 10 years of working as an escort, she would face a pretty substantial risk of getting the disease.
The risks would be higher for streetwalkers than they would be for women who work at an incall service, partly because streetwalkers' clients are more likely to be infected and partly because streetwalkers have less opportunity to inspect their clients and engage in other safe sex practices. The bottom line, though is that condom use is a pretty important safety measure for women who sell sex. If I were a woman in this business, I would absolutely insist on condoms. Men, on the other hand, would probably be pretty safe even if they had unprotected sex once in awhile, so long as they didn't make a regular habit of it. But still, I wouldn't do it personally. On top of HIV risk, there are some other STDs that I'd just as soon not experience.
Also, the risk that Waterclone mentions of 1/10,000 from "fellating a man" is the risk which a woman experiences when she gives a blowjob to an infected man. The risk which a man experiences when he GETS a blowjob from an infected woman is listed separately under "man being felated." Once again, the risk of that sex act to a man is only half as high as the risk to the woman: 0.5/10,000.
These numbers make the risks sound low, and they are low for an individual sex act. The thing to bear in mind, however, is that people don't just have sex once. The number of people you have sex with, and the frequency with which you have sex, can amplify a small risk into a significantly larger one. The way this works out is that there is higher risk for women who work as sex providers than for men who visit sex providers, and of course the risks are very very low for people who are monogamous.
You also have to take into account the percentage of the population that is infected with HIV. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimates that currently about 1 million Americans are infected -- roughly 1 percent of the population. However, the risk is not uniformly distributed. Men who have sex with other men account for nearly half of all people infected in the U.S. (even though gay and bisexual men only account for 4% of the U.S. population). Women account for about 1/4 of all HIV infections, so the likelihood of an individual woman having HIV is about 1 in 600. Obviously the risks are higher for women who sell sex for a living or who engage in other risky activities such as intravenous drug use. I'm not going to bother trying to carefully estimate the breakout of those risks, but I think it's safe to guesstimate that the likelihood of a woman being infected is less than 1/1,000 if she does not fall into one of those higher-risk categories.
On this basis, we can see that the risk for a man who only has sex with his wife is quite low. Even if he doesn't know everything about her past and current sex life, he can reasonably assume that there is a less than 1/1,000 chance that she is infected. Let's assume that they have an enthusiastic sex life and fuck three times a day. That works out to roughly 1,000 acts of intercourse per year, so his risk of contracting HIV during a year of fucking her is 1,000 time the risk of her being infected (1/1,000) times the transmission rate per instance of vaginal intercourse (5/10,000). His annual risk of infection is therefore 5/10,000. Even if they have sex at that rate for 50 years, he only has a 2.5% chance of getting HIV.
Now consider the case of a woman who works as an escort and has bareback sex with 5 different men per day. It's reasonable to assume that the risk of each of those men being infected is higher than the general population, so let's estimate that 1 in 50 of her clients has HIV. Her risk for infection during a single act of intercourse is still quite low (1/50 X 10/10,000 = 1/50,000). Over the course of a year, however, she has sex about 1,500 times, so her actual risk of contracting HIV is about 4% per year, which means that in 10 years of working as an escort, she would face a pretty substantial risk of getting the disease.
The risks would be higher for streetwalkers than they would be for women who work at an incall service, partly because streetwalkers' clients are more likely to be infected and partly because streetwalkers have less opportunity to inspect their clients and engage in other safe sex practices. The bottom line, though is that condom use is a pretty important safety measure for women who sell sex. If I were a woman in this business, I would absolutely insist on condoms. Men, on the other hand, would probably be pretty safe even if they had unprotected sex once in awhile, so long as they didn't make a regular habit of it. But still, I wouldn't do it personally. On top of HIV risk, there are some other STDs that I'd just as soon not experience.
Last edited:
Oral Sex and the Risk of HIV Transmission
The risk of HIV transmission from an infected partner through oral sex is much less than the risk of HIV transmission from anal or vaginal sex. Measuring the exact risk of HIV transmission as a result of oral sex is very difficult. Additionally, because most sexually active individuals practice oral sex in addition to other forms of sex, such as vaginal and/or anal sex, when transmission occurs, it is difficult to determine whether or not it occurred as a result of oral sex or other more risky sexual activities. Finally, several co-factors may increase the risk of HIV transmission through oral sex, including: oral ulcers, bleeding gums, genital sores, and the presence of other STDs. What is known is that HIV has been transmitted through fellatio, cunnilingus, and anilingus.
http://goo.gl/ufQ5w
It is not so much a function of probability, but of magnitude. The probability of contracting HIV may be small, but if you get it the consequences are huge. Remember, we are not calculating the throw of the dice.
Thanks to madcityguy for understanding probability and statistics.
The risk of HIV transmission from an infected partner through oral sex is much less than the risk of HIV transmission from anal or vaginal sex. Measuring the exact risk of HIV transmission as a result of oral sex is very difficult. Additionally, because most sexually active individuals practice oral sex in addition to other forms of sex, such as vaginal and/or anal sex, when transmission occurs, it is difficult to determine whether or not it occurred as a result of oral sex or other more risky sexual activities. Finally, several co-factors may increase the risk of HIV transmission through oral sex, including: oral ulcers, bleeding gums, genital sores, and the presence of other STDs. What is known is that HIV has been transmitted through fellatio, cunnilingus, and anilingus.
http://goo.gl/ufQ5w
It is not so much a function of probability, but of magnitude. The probability of contracting HIV may be small, but if you get it the consequences are huge. Remember, we are not calculating the throw of the dice.
Thanks to madcityguy for understanding probability and statistics.
Last edited:
Hm, upon rereading my post I realized that I've overstated the risks somewhat, because I stated that 1 million Americans have HIV and said that was "roughly 1 percent of the population." Actually, the population of the U.S. is around 300 million, so it's more accurate to say that roughly 0.3 percent of the population has HIV. In general, this would mean that the risks of getting HIV are about 1/3 of what I estimated in my earlier post. Bear in mind that these are all off-the-cuff calculations on my part. The other thing I'd reiterate is that although HIV/AIDS gets a lot of the attention, other STDs like herpes are actually much more prevalent and can have a serious impact on quality of life.
I'd also point out that the risks to individuals are a little different than the risks to populations, and I haven't bothered to consider that in my calculations. For example, consider the case of a sex act with a 1 in 10,000 risk of transmitting HIV. This doesn't literally mean that if you commit that sex act 10,000 times you are 100% guaranteed to get the disease. To calculate your actual personal odds, you would have to do an exponential calculation: the probability of NOT getting HIV, taken to the power of the number of times you have sex. In the case of 10,000 sex acts, each with a risk of 1 in 10,000, that would work out as .9999 ^ 10,000 = .368. In other words, you would have a 36.8% chance of not getting HIV, so your risk of getting HIV in this scenario would be 63.2%. I don't think any sane person would willingly accept that level of risk, but still, it's less than 100%. Just saying.
its rolling the dice but you can get the dice loaded in your favor by using common sense
because in general higher the class the better she looks after herself
Have had BBFS many times with a girl I was seeing who was also high class $1000/night, its amazing if you can get. Was many years back and been tested many times since. Would I repeat it? Well I'm not as reckless as I was back then
because in general higher the class the better she looks after herself
Have had BBFS many times with a girl I was seeing who was also high class $1000/night, its amazing if you can get. Was many years back and been tested many times since. Would I repeat it? Well I'm not as reckless as I was back then
Yeah ..but
Actually the numbers are a bit skewed, the percentages are based on the "average" American male and female. With the amount of sex that this group has that percentage HAS TO be much higher than average. If an AMP or other provider has sex with a different partner 3 - 5 times per day( or even 6 times a week) then the percentage of infected individuals is much higher than the "average" for both HIV and STD's
my 2 cents
Actually the numbers are a bit skewed, the percentages are based on the "average" American male and female. With the amount of sex that this group has that percentage HAS TO be much higher than average. If an AMP or other provider has sex with a different partner 3 - 5 times per day( or even 6 times a week) then the percentage of infected individuals is much higher than the "average" for both HIV and STD's
my 2 cents
I think you might be the one who needs a class in reading comprehension. I never said either of the numbers that you are claiming. I was very specifically referring to the numbers on "insertive penile-vaginal intercourse" for sex, and "Man being fellated" when referring to oral sex. I said..
.005% is also known as .5 out of 10,000 which is the listed number for man being felated.
.05% is also known as 5 out of 10,000 which is the listed number for "Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse"
And, remember, these numbers are based on having sex with a definitely infected source. If you actually factor in the odds of whether the girl you are with is infected or not (I don't know those) then your odds of getting infected go down even further.
.005% is also known as .5 out of 10,000 which is the listed number for man being felated.
.05% is also known as 5 out of 10,000 which is the listed number for "Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse"
And, remember, these numbers are based on having sex with a definitely infected source. If you actually factor in the odds of whether the girl you are with is infected or not (I don't know those) then your odds of getting infected go down even further.
As I have said before. I am not a proponent of any activities. I just take exception to judgmental people who don't respect that we all are engaging in behavior that others consider risky. Everyone gets to make their own personal choices regarding risk/reward. Anyone who pays for sex of any kind (covered or not) has no business judging someone else for their choices.
There are plenty of messages on the board implying that STD's are more contagious than yawns. A counter balance is necessary. People making decisions based on incorrect information make poor decisions. I know it may seem like there is no harm in lying to people for their own safety, but it's lies like that which are the reason this hobby is illegal.
There are plenty of messages on the board implying that STD's are more contagious than yawns. A counter balance is necessary. People making decisions based on incorrect information make poor decisions. I know it may seem like there is no harm in lying to people for their own safety, but it's lies like that which are the reason this hobby is illegal.
Last edited:
Before I say this next thing, I want to echo Waterclone in emphasizing that I am not a proponent of BBFS, but only of rational discussion:
I wonder whether the overreactive hysteria that touches that subject when it is raised is a reflection of the guilt some guys feel about participating in commercial sex.
I wonder whether the overreactive hysteria that touches that subject when it is raised is a reflection of the guilt some guys feel about participating in commercial sex.
I don't think so. The fear of AIDS and the overreactive hysteria is pretty commonplace in non-hobby society.
I think it's comes from the propaganda that's been thrown at us since the 70's. I am 41. AIDS hit the headlines before I was sexually active. My whole life I have been terrified of it. As a kid, even my fantasy's included condoms.
I think it's comes from the propaganda that's been thrown at us since the 70's. I am 41. AIDS hit the headlines before I was sexually active. My whole life I have been terrified of it. As a kid, even my fantasy's included condoms.
Medicine is like that. Look at the worry doctors pile on over Lyme disease and sunburn. It's not just about inhibitions, there is a real level of concern from the clinical workers people in the trenches. This is amplified by a media that gets higher ratings for stories about danger than for reports about good news.
So it's no lie to talk of the dangers, but I maintain that it's not useful to try and figure ones odds based on the aggregate numbers. Some people have secondary infections (like herpes), others are positive but taking antivirals, still others in some countries prefer dry sex, beyond that a small fraction of people are genetically resistant to catching it, so in the end we are still left with an unknown.
So it's no lie to talk of the dangers, but I maintain that it's not useful to try and figure ones odds based on the aggregate numbers. Some people have secondary infections (like herpes), others are positive but taking antivirals, still others in some countries prefer dry sex, beyond that a small fraction of people are genetically resistant to catching it, so in the end we are still left with an unknown.
Last edited: