Sexually Transmitted Disease (std) Talk

I guess from my perspective I separated the issue of bb from HIV, since BB outside of a serious relationship has no appeal to me.

To me, there's been a huge cultural movement to identify free sexuality with HIV infection, or at least there was in the nineties, and I felt more than a little angry after seeing the effects of AIDS in Africa and realizing how much of the discussion in the U.S. was highly politicized propaganda. One of the doctors in Malawi said that he had diagnosed only one case in a bonafide hetero male in the U. S., and that man had been sleeping with his HIV positive wife for nearly seven years. According to this doctor, repeated exposure weakened resistance to an otherwise fragile virus. For Africans, the other infections they suffered from increased their likelihood of becoming infected. And in the U.S. public health was all about the "AIDS doesn't discriminate," mantra,when the reality is that a rural miner in Malawi might as well being living on another planet when it comes to HIV. It's really heartbreaking seeing a four year old with AIDS.


But again, I'd never not use protection, for myself and the other person, especially since its more risky for the female partner. P4p or not, it's important to have respect for the other person. There are plenty of other infections much much more prominent also that are very, very easy to get.

For me, I only wrote my 2 cents to calm someone who might be freaking out over a busted condom or because of a needle stick, such as a nurse or doctor. I'm definitely not condoning risky behavior.
 
A fair point Golden. Two very serious distinctions that should be recognized (in the case of population vs. sex workers):

1) availability of treatment
2) awareness of infection status and consequently, viral load

Both of these factors, due to the shady (according to The Man (TM) ) nature of the activity we're talking about in this forum, are going to be in the far right of the distribution of risk in the p4p community. But yes: in the general population, antiretrovirals today are so much more effective than they were even a few years ago that HIV can pretty much be a nuisance condition...IF you catch the infection early AND you're lucky enough to afford the drugs. That's one reason I find it challenging to give much weight to examples like the U.S. couple you mentioned. The details of their prophylaxis and/or any treatment she was on was omitted.

That said, given the changes to lifestyle that would be caused by an infection, I think some "controlled freak-out" (is that a thing?) is justified. There's no reason not to get tested and put on PEP, given the consequences of ignoring the risk, especially in a medical context with exposure to blood (much higher risk than semen).

There is certainly a class of working girls who are cautious, responsible, and educated about HIV and stds. It's really nice to have many of them in this community! But they are not the risk factors for spreading disease. The punters who have a one-off BB with some poor desperate girl in Soy Cowboy and bring it back into an otherwise responsible community of hobbyists because they don't like condoms, are.

And all this leads me to the rage I feel about sex work being illegal in most of the world, which is the real reason there is significant risk at all. "We don't like sex work (or we don't want people to think we do...), so let's make it as dangerous as possible for the most vulnerable people in the trade." Makes my blood boil...
 
I don't understand why this discussion has become so focused on HIV, there are plenty of other STDs and they can be asymptomatic and easily passed on.

---

There was a posting on ISG recently of a guy who goes around specifically looking for BBFS, he came inside the woman twice
"and after I said I came she looked surprised. I didn't know if I had made a faux pa or whether it was because I came so quickly"

I bet she was surprised. His lack of respect for her is astounding, not just because of STDs but the chance of pregnancy.
 
Well, some of it is the fact that in the late 80's and early 90's people (to be fair, mostly gay men) were dying in heaps and nobody knew what was going on, so there's a lot of residual fear. I think I have to concede this point.

But unlike most other STDs, it's also incurable, fatal if untreated, expensive to manage, and limits future choice in lower risk sexual relationships.
 
I don´t want to get involved in this, but I really take issue with that last metaphor of yours. That is so NOT it.
If other people fly or do not fly is irrelevant for me. If other people pee in the same swimming pool that I am in (because in their mind that is their "swimming preference"), that IS relevant for me. Even if the chance of me catching any disease from that are almost zero. That is besides the point. It is about common sense and common decency.

Please make up metaphors that make sense.

If my metaphor was poorly chosen and gave any offense, I apologize, but rather than try for another metaphor, let me just say directly what I was trying to express, namely this: I think it is bogus to complain about the risks to which you are subjected by other people's personal choices when those risks are *tiny* compared to many other risks you willingly and routinely accept in your daily life without complaint/comment or concern.

Another way of expressing it is that I think it is totally valid for someone's own choices to be controlled/influenced by their fears even if they are exaggerated or irrational. Fear is an emotion and is inherently irrational in nature, and we are all humans, not Vulcans. (In the present context, this means I have no problem with anyone who has a strict safe sex policy for their own participation in p4p.) However, if you criticize and/or seek to control the choices and behavior of others based on your personal fears and concerns, then they do need to be rational and objectively demonstrable. (In the present context, this means I think it is unjustified to criticize people who engage in BBFS p4p because the increase in risk to those who stick to CFS p4p is negligibly small compared to many other risks in life and, for that matter, in participating in p4p at all.)

To take an example of the opposite sort, I agree with those who criticize and seek to punish people who drive while intoxicate; that is a choice which can easily and clearly be shown to put the lives and well beings of others at *significant* risk compared to other common dangers in life. And, finally, returning to my perhaps flawed metaphor, it is why it is not reasonable to criticize those who choose to fly in commercial airliners because the increased risk to those on the ground, while not zero, is totally insignificant to many other dangers of life in general.

-Ww
 
there's been a huge cultural movement to identify free sexuality with HIV infection, or at least there was in the nineties, and I felt more than a little angry after seeing the effects of AIDS in Africa and realizing how much of the discussion in the U.S. was highly politicized propaganda.

Fwiiw, my comments in this thread were primarily intended to back up GD's comments along the line of the above quote. Although TDE is correct that the HIV risk "hysteria" that was strongly promoted by the media and public health officials in the US and other First World countries (including Japan) was motivated partly by real uncertainties in the risk of transmission in the hetro population in the 1980s and early 1990s, GD is also correct in saying that the effort to mislead the public had many and strong political, religious, morality etc based motivations. Basically it was an attempt to control other people's choices via fear and by lying to them. I personally know of public health officials who have privately admitted precisely such motivations. Imo, that also is immoral behavior, and GD is justified in feeling angry about it.

-Ww
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solong
If my metaphor was poorly chosen and gave any offense, I apologize, but rather than try for another metaphor, let me just say directly what I was trying to express, namely this: I think it is bogus to complain about the risks to which you are subjected by other people's personal choices when those risks are *tiny* compared to many other risks you willingly and routinely accept in your daily life without complaint/comment or concern.

Misunderstading. I am not complaining about the "risk". I am complaining about the *people* who behave antisocial and needlessly expose the rest of us to the (even if small) risk that is the result of their "preference".

Maybe or probably less risky than drunk driving, or texting while driving, Maybe only as risky as not washing their hands before working in a kitchen. But all that quibbling about statistical risk does not mean that I have to approve of their behavior, and their claim that it is just a "preference".
 
Do you also disapprove, strongly enough to express your displeasure, of those who have BB oral sex, without condoms or dental dams in fellatio and cunnilingnus, respectively? Or do you consider the "quibbling about statistical risk" relevant for those activities? Do you ever have BB p4p oral sex (in either direction), and if so, would you feel someone justified in criticizing you as antisocial and uncaring about their safety in making your choices?

Let me hasten to add that despite the way I have phrased the previous paragraph, I am not actually asking or expecting you to answer those questions. I regard them as rhetorical. Rather I am just trying to point out that many people who say, as for example kansai-sayuri does in a post above, that they don't care how low the risks are because *any* risk of HIV infection is "simply not worth it" don't actually behave that way because they routinely expose themselves to some (extremely low) risk during oral sex. (To be clear, I am not claiming that sayuri does this; I have no idea what her safe oral sex practices are or aren't.)

Indeed, anyone who considers *any* risk at all of HIV infection, no matter how small, during p4p activities unacceptable cannot logically participate in commercial sex in any way, since even being in the physical presence (within a few meters say) of a person who *might* be HIV positive carries some extraordinarily minute and unknown but still non-zero risk. It is just too small to worry any remotely rational person.

Finally, I am certainly not suggesting that you "have to approve of their behavior" or even that you ought to refrain from expressing your disapproval, rather I am saying that it does not seem to me that anyone else should feel a need to take your disapproval into consideration in making their personal choices if it (the disapproval) cannot be justified on some rational and objective basis. If I may make another metaphor (simile actually), which I suspect you won't like any better than the last one, it is a bit like the (very many) people who disapprove of anyone buying or selling sex, i.e., of prostitution in all its forms. Typically they can't convincingly show that it does them any personal harm for other people to buy/sell sex, but they simply consider it wrong, disapprove of everyone involved and seek to stigmatize and, in many places, legally suppress the activity. I would think that pretty nearly everyone in a community such as TAG would feel that the consequences of such rationally unsupported/unsupportable disapproval are bad.

-Ww
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solong
That's one reason I find it challenging to give much weight to examples like the U.S. couple you mentioned.

I'm taking the above quote out of context as an excuse to mention that the stats I have been giving in posts above are very pessimistic/conservative wrt Japan where the HIV infection rate is far less than in the US. For comparison, roughly 17,000 people die per year from AIDS in the US; the same number for Japan is approximately 100!

-Ww
 
If the intent of this thread was to make others aware of the so called "dangers" of the hobby, the point is well received. I'm not the everyday, or even every week sort of person, that some of you others appear to be; not judging, just appears that way. I'm likely to reduce even further any activity, as well as be far more careful. Well done!
 
Do you also disapprove, strongly enough to express your displeasure, of those who have BB oral sex,

We have been there before, and I said already that I do not accept the argument that if you accept BBBJ, you also have to automatically accept bareback FS in the p4p environment. Following that "all or nothing" logic, what is next? BB AF perhaps? The sky is the limit.

I think it is a cheap rethorical trick by the barebackers to justify their "preference". So I am not going there. Over and out.
 
Last edited:
We have been there before, and I said already that I do not accept the argument that if you accept BBBJ, you also have to automatically accept bareback FS in the p4p environment. Following that "all or nothing" logic, what is next? BB AF perhaps? The sky is the limit.

I think it is a cheap rethorical trick by the barebackers to justify their "preference". So I am not going there. Over and out.

I'm fine with dropping our exchange at this point; we've both probably said what we have to say. However, to be clear and avoid having you put words in my mouth, I neither said nor meant to imply that accepting BBBJ means that "you also have to automatically accept bareback FS in the p4p environment." Actually I think precisely the opposite, namely that accepting BBBJ but not BBFS makes good statistical sense because the former is demonstrably less risky than the latter. Rather I raised the question in reply to you dismissing "quibbling about statistical risk". If you don't care about the statistics of tiny risks then on what basis do you distinguish between BBBJ and BBFS? If you had quoted one more sentence of my post, you would have seen this:

Do you also disapprove, strongly enough to express your displeasure, of those who have BB oral sex, without condoms or dental dams in fellatio and cunnilingnus, respectively? Or do you consider the "quibbling about statistical risk" relevant for those activities?

which apparently failed to make my meaning clear.

-Ww
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solong
Actually I think precisely the opposite, namely that accepting BBBJ but not BBFS makes good statistical sense because the former is demonstrably less risky than the latter.

Well, then don´t insinuate that everyone who accepts the former also has to accept the latter.
And really over and out now...
 
her body was a bit scary for me.... she looked anorexic to the degree that images of Biafra came to mind. A walking skeleton! So you say she has finally put one some flesh since then?

I have moved the above fragment here from the thread in which it was posted due to the content of my comment - namely, that this sort of extremely emaciated appearance may be the result of a number of possible causes, including anorexia and various physical illnesses but is also quite often associated with hard drug use, which in turn is highly correlated with HIV infection. Moreover, those with active AIDS (as opposed to "merely" being HIV positive) often become extraordinarily thin. Indeed, many slang terms for AIDS in Africa refer to the victims being extremely thin (http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/elsewhere-african-slang-for-hivaids/?_r=0). And in addition to the possible HIV threat, some of the possible illnesses which cause severe loss of body mass are infectious (in ways against which condoms offer no protection).

So, if you wish to minimize risks to your health from p4p activities (and if you are the sort who thinks statistics are even relevant to assessing risk...which some here do not, I realize), seeing *extremely* thin escorts might be a gamble that it would be wiser to avoid. And if you do see them, BB-anything is a bigger risk than it otherwise would be (on a statistical basis).

-Ww
 
OK, maybe my question is a little different from the last topic, but still on the main topic
is there anybody here know is there any health check in japanese sex industries or not?
 
OK, maybe my question is a little different from the last topic, but still on the main topic is there anybody here know is there any health check in japanese sex industries or not?

Of course there is, but since the "japanese sex industry" is illegal, don´t expect any government regulation on this. It is up to the individuals to take care of their health.
 
By the way, I had my first routine STD blood test in Japan last week (usually just get it done when I go back to my home country) and it cost over Y10,000. My good friend (who knows about these things) informed me that Japanese national health insurance won't cover STD testing. I was floored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TokyoJoeblow
Of course there is, but since the "japanese sex industry" is illegal, don´t expect any government regulation on this. It is up to the individuals to take care of their health.
I see but from my experience today, they like have some regulation like shower and gargling before and after, bring their own condom, and take care of their private part very well. But I don't know if all provider or customer follow that regulation, but at least for me I feel safer because of that.

And by any chance is there anybody here ever caught STD in tokyo? If it's OK with you please share your experience :)
 
And by any chance is there anybody here ever caught STD in tokyo? If it's OK with you please share your experience :)

I never caught an STD in Tokyo, neither from commercial nor from non-commercial encounters.

I did catch an STD from a Japanese tourist girl in Copenhagen once. That was all completely non-commercial, just sex for fun the way our nampa brothers advocate it, and unsurprisingly all bareback, the way the barebacker community likes it. Anecdotal evidence, so take that for what it is worth...
 
I see but from my experience today, they like have some regulation like shower and gargling before and after, bring their own condom, and take care of their private part very well. But I don't know if all provider or customer follow that regulation, but at least for me I feel safer because of that.:)

All of the above is common sense stuff, and as far as it is a "regulation" it is one that the shop makes or that you made yourself. The government has nothing to do with it.

Please note that Japan is not a third world hellhole...
 
I never caught an STD in Tokyo, neither from commercial nor from non-commercial encounters.

I did catch an STD from a Japanese tourist girl in Copenhagen once. That was all completely non-commercial, just sex for fun the way our nampa brothers advocate it, and unsurprisingly all bareback, the way the barebacker community likes it. Anecdotal evidence, so take that for what it is worth...

I see I see, bareback surely have a high risk

All of the above is common sense stuff, and as far as it is a "regulation" it is one that the shop makes or that you made yourself. The government has nothing to do with it.

Please note that Japan is not a third world hellhole...

Yes I agree haha, I think it's the regulation from the shop
 
To be clear, there is no regulated or required testing in Japan, as brothels are not regulated and FS is technically illegal.

Ideological side note: the government position is like saying "flying is dangerous, so let's remove all the parachutes on the plane so nobody flies"... in a world where everyone is constantly compelled to fly.
 
To be clear, there is no regulated or required testing in Japan, as brothels are not regulated and FS is technically illegal.

Ideological side note: the government position is like saying "flying is dangerous, so let's remove all the parachutes on the plane so nobody flies"... in a world where everyone is constantly compelled to fly.

I see I see, recently I've been so panaroid of STD especially HIV but now I'm starting to calm down knowing I've been using condom before and the rate of HIV in japan is lower than my country
 
I see I see, recently I've been so paranoid of STD especially HIV but now I'm starting to calm down knowing I've been using condom before and the rate of HIV in japan is lower than my country

If you will pardon me for the net sin of self-quotation and in case you have not read the earlier parts of this thread, I'd suggest that you have a look at this post of mine:

I actually have some professional expertise re HIV infection, and GD is correct that the risks of being infected via unprotected vaginal intercourse are so low that it is arguably irrational to pay them any attention. ...

I understand that statistics do not have much leverage against paranoia, as you call it (not me), and fear, but fwiiw actual data indicates that even VERY frequent protected/covered vaginal intercourse with p4p partners puts you at no significant risk from HIV...nothing that should concern you on any rational basis. In other words you are most certainly tolerating *many* MUCH greater risks without giving them a thought. In fact this would be true even if you were getting BBFS instead, but with the cover, the risk is so small as to be meaningless. It is quite possible that no man anywhere has ever contracted HIV via protected p4p vaginal intercourse.

There are other and valid reasons to be worried about p4p BBFS, but HIV infection isn't.

-Ww
 
If you will pardon me for the net sin of self-quotation and in case you have not read the earlier parts of this thread, I'd suggest that you have a look at this post of mine:



I understand that statistics do not have much leverage against paranoia, as you call it (not me), and fear, but fwiiw actual data indicates that even VERY frequent protected/covered vaginal intercourse with p4p partners puts you at no significant risk from HIV...nothing that should concern you on any rational basis. In other words you are most certainly tolerating *many* MUCH greater risks without giving them a thought. In fact this would be true even if you were getting BBFS instead, but with the cover, the risk is so small as to be meaningless. It is quite possible that no man anywhere has ever contracted HIV via protected p4p vaginal intercourse.

There are other and valid reasons to be worried about p4p BBFS, but HIV infection isn't.

-Ww

I see, I got your point, right now what I need to get is peace state of mind and your post helps me to achieve that, and I assume the risk in the oral like cunningulus is more lower isn't it?