Late breaking news: New York's Governor Eliot Spitzer has been caught being a client for a high priced prostitution ring that was busted over the weekend. For those of us who live in the northeast, we are familiar with Spitzer (from when he was attorney general) as an incredibly self-righteous prosecutor who would boil with rage when he busted prostitution rings. I suppose I could use this opportunity to point out what a hypocritical a-hole this guy is, but being the sweetheart that I am, I won't even mention the thought. (Oh, I just did. Ooops.). But I will point out that this would be a great time for someone (admittedly not someone with his dick recently caught in a pussy) to point out what an absurd waste of resources it is for our society to prosecute consensual, harmless sexual activities between adults. Of course, I know I'm preaching to the choir.
Another politician telling us how to live our lives. Then he does just the opposite of what he preaches. Wonder who he can blame this mess on. They never accept responsibility.
The governor issued a press release on the subject. Here it is:
"Consider this my unofficial statement.
"First of all, to say there was literally a ring of prostitutes for me to sample like an endless buffet, is absurd. It was never more than two or three girls at a time. So by my calculations that makes it, at most, a prostitution prism.
"But more importantly this isn’t my fault; it’s just another example of the Republican Party doing whatever they can to discredit me, the Democratic Party and my reforms on government. They knew that I like to have sex with dirty whores and guess what, when I had one of my infamous dirty whore cravings, magically many of them were available in an elaborate online network.
"The report mentioned a specific encounter I had with a woman on the evening of February 13th. As many of you know out there, this is a day officially referred to as Cheaters Day — when men take out their mistresses for Valentine’s Day, because on the 14th they have to be with their boring wives. Well doesn’t that tell you that I at least treated this whore well? It implies a degree of amour, of thinking of this woman of the night as more than a few lady holes."
This is what I want to know...the website that he ordered from listed girls from $1,000 to $5,500 an hour. What could any woman (and I mean _any_ woman...Jennifer Love Hewitt/Salma Hayek/Jamie Lee Curtis in her prime, or now...do to, at, on or with me that would be worth $5,500 an hour.
The mind reels.
By the way, Spitzer's babe apparently was more towards the middle of the pack, because he paid $4,300, and this included her train fare from NY to Washington, D.C. and back.
I can't wait to see the portfolio in Playboy. I'll probably buy the rag for the first time in 15 years.
I don't find this fellow as hypocritical as Vitter or Craig, both of whom campaigned vigorously for "family values" and against "immorality" such as extra-marital sex. It's still pretty hypocritical, since Spitzer was a campaigner for ethics reform, but the reform he had in mind was more financial than sexual.
I'm amazed that these men don't have better sense. Airport bathroom? Telephone call to online hooker service which you find ON THE INTERNET? Geez. If you're a governor, don't you have a little more sense? And maybe a staffer or two to help you out? I can see that the international call-girl ring could be a US security risk -- bringing in Ukrainians to service the dignitaries at major White House parties and at embassies in Washington, that sort of thing. So it makes sense the FBI or some other government watchdog would be trailing it, running a sting. What I don't get is, how can a dang GOVERNOR be so stupid as to get caught? I mean, dude, don't you have INTERNS?
This is why I feel so much more comfortable in Tijuana,where all this stuff is legal. Although, admittedly, you do have to deal with issues of violent crime and police shake-downs.
Another way in which I'm feeling superior to Mr. Elliot this morning...I use a "Boost" type of pre-paid telephone, rather than my regular cell phone, if I am making potentially troublesome calls. As far as I know, the "pre-loaded" type of phone is untraceable to me. The closest they could get to me, I suppose, would be the store where I bought it. But I use cash for the phone and cash for the minutes, so as far I know, it is an anonymous transaction. This hopefully avoids my voice being on calls that the FBI has transcribed for Mr. Spitzer (see thesmokinggun.com).
It would be difficult to catalog all the Rules of Hobbying he violated, but for starters:
*He left a nice clear paper trail for anyone to follow by making payments by switching money around accounts (instead of just paying in cash). The money movement is what got him in trouble -- it drew the attention of the banks, who in turn reported the transactions to the feds.
*He used an agency on the theory it provided greater discetion, when any fool should know the opposite is true. Agencies involve lots of people, and so there's a better chance some person will tattle. Here, an ex-escort gave the feds enough information to justify wire taps on the agency's cell phones. If he had used an independent (and there are many in NY and WDC) he would have avoided that.
*He way overpaid. $4300? WTF?!? Some of the best providers in the world are on the east coast and don't charge anything like that. He doesn't even have the excuse of losing his head in the moment -- he planned the whole thing out well in advance.
*He paid for 4 hours, and not surprisingly used less than 2. What fool would hire for a 4 hour date?
*He disrespected the girls. It appears Spitzer had a reputation for being "difficult," and apparently liked to bareback. That kind of behavior would have caught up with him eventually one day, even if the feds hadn't. This really was a violation of several rules at once: always practice safe sex; always comply with the provider's limits, whatever they are; always respect the provider. Apart from losing his office and marriage, he's also going to be blacklisted on the provider boards, and then he'll really be sorry.
Heard reports that Spitzer's brother was making some kind of socio-biology (men as innately nonmonogamous via evolution) arguments to the press - to justify it. While I obviously would support such arguments, it doesn't seem a good time or a very smart idea to bring them up at this moment.
Just be sure not to have your pre-paid phone on right next to your regular cell phone. "They" can track your cell phone's whereabouts. Did they happen to catch you on video where you bought the pre-paid phone chitown? If so, be sure not to pay with a credit card at that same place ever again...
Oh no, strictly cash, and at a store where I never go otherwise, generally different Walgreens' stores that I just happen to pass while driving from one courthouse to another in different parts of the State. The Walgreen's chain is a reliable, easily accessible source of the phones and the "minutes cards." (I live is such a small town that any cashier at the store location in my town could easily identify me, at least by appearance, probably by name.)
Twenty-five years ago, I prowled the Walgreen's stores for rubbers so I could be ready for sex; now it's the same thing, except I'm in search of cheap cell phones, for the same reason. Life is strange beyond imagination.
"What could any woman (and I mean _any_ woman...Jennifer Love Hewitt/Salma Hayek/Jamie Lee Curtis in her prime, or now...do to, at, on or with me that would be worth $5,500 an hour."
Your overlooking an important factor. The purpose of many of these high end escort services is not just high quality girls, its for customers to have the option of having unprotected sex, where women that can some assurance are not carrying some major disease.
Read the transcripts, its clear Spitzer habit or pattern was to purchase unprotected sex, and this is was likely here also.
here's a portion from wire stories:
(Later, the agent told "Kristen" that the client would "ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe -- you know -- I mean that ... very basic things. ... 'Kristen' responded: 'I have a way of dealing with that. ... I'd be like, listen dude, you really want the sex?' ... You know what I mean.'")
Little doubt she did what the client wanted, despite her claims.
Ultra-rich (Spitzer's worth in the 10's of millions) believe they should be able to have real sex not just covered sex, which some would argue is not even sex at all.
As an example (and they're everywhere) would be several of the high end sex resorts in the Domican Republic (one of which I believe Rush Limbaugh was headed to) when he got stopped by customs for his Viagra after exiting his (NetJets timeshared) Gulf V Jet
See http://www.exoticretreat.net/rates.mgi. They do all sorts of testing on the girls, stock from mostly eastern europe, and the clients tend to be very wealthy and are used to getting what they want.
We've had these discussions before. Unprotected sex is VERY common even starting at the middle (e.g. stripper) price range. Heck, a fair number of girls will take the initiative and pull it off without charging extra or without you even indicate you would prefer that.
Strippers doing OTC may go unprotected at times or crazy ones in the clubs - but's as far as I understand that's not mainstream in the agency world or even with most of the (beyond drug dependant) typical independants. Look on the TER site and you can confirm this, where 100's of providers having commented on this issue over the years. (of course on TER nearly all the providers all appear to believe sex with a condom s/b as good as sex w/o one for the men - which is incorrect, but safety is a major concern with sane providers). The bottom line with random clients its could be tantamount to suicide for an escort to have unprotected sex, because transmissibility factor is very very high with with an infected male having intercourse with a provider.
The high end upcale agencies have very selective girls an are very selective about clients, so there is a built-in protection factor, and some in fact do test and they sell that as part of the deal.
No doubt, based upon new reports, Spitzer wasn't just a hobbyist, he was junkie hobbyist. Bet you he spent over a million dollars over the 10 yr period he is alleged to have been in the hobby.
If I had ten's of millions of dollars, I might not think twice about dropping $5k for sex. Since I only have a fraction of a million dollars, a couple of hundred is my limit - afterall, it's only sex...
You should believe online escorts/strippers who say they don't do unprotected sex about as much as you should believe strippers who say they don't do extras... They are friggin' lying! There is a TER poll in the archive on this subject ("HAVE YOU EVER HAD BARE BACK FULL SERVICE FROM A PROVIDER?"):
Plenty of personal and anecdotal evidence to support the claim that this is true as well.
As for it being tantamount to suicide: That is a bit of exaggeration. HIV is the worst that could happen, and, fortunately, the strain we have here in North America is very hard to transmit heterosexually (especially among white people). Even in this worst case scenario the HIV medicines have gotten so good that life expectancy is now only a few years less for those who are HIV+ then those who are HIV-. Hep-C might be as bad now, but it is not clear that it can be transmitted heterosexually (if it can transmissibility is surely even lower than HIV). (OTOH, do not share drug paraphernalia needles, crack pipes, straws to snort coke with them.) Herpes is the most realistic threat, and that, beyond the stigma, is objectively almost always little more than a nuisance.
OK, so 43% of respondents respond yes to the question "have you ever had bareback full service sex" with a provider. That's a TER poll, some of these guys have been hobbying for 20 years, some have had 100's of different women, and a single time would give them a yes answer, and we don't know if these are long time regular situations or not, where the provider develops some familiarity with a client. No way are typical stable minded and rational mid-scale agency/independents providers (working at an average $300 to $ 500 per typical one hour session) going bareback in percentages anything approaching anything like 43%. Forget about the risk, its not worth destroying their day to day peace of mind, never knowing when they finally picked up AIDs. That's clearly playing russian roulette and at those pay levels the cost to benefit equation - just doesn't work for anyone having any degree of sanity.
Yup, the OVERALL "suicide" risk could be overstated and certainly the media overhypes it, but certainly not in a case for example where a provider is seeing 100 random new clients a year, and she's going bareback on FS with the bulk of them.
Spitzer was clearly a hobbyist/sex addict of sorts seeing high volumes of different women - and apparently he was getting much of it unprotected, which means its "real sex" - not protected sex which arguably isn't real sex at all. He obviously used super-upscales in part because the bare-back option was more viable. This is the major enticement factor that is being used by many of these agencies to entice the very wealthy to take part on this activity.
Ok the news is saying that a law enforcement official said Tuesday that Spitzer had spent tens of thousands of dollars with the call-girl service Emperors Club VIP. Another official said the amount could be as high as $80,000. HOLY CRAP!!!!
Hes the gov of NY and couldnt freakin get laid for free?
David: Yes, some have been in the hobby 20 years or more. But some are newbies, and some have never or would never try. It's only anecdotal (based on my personal experience, what others on the escort boards, and what others HERE have posted) but my read is that somewhere between 33-66% of providers will go bareback with their regulars.
Most will not do it with a new customer on the first "date" proactively. But, in my own experience, about 15% will send you "the vibe" that is available (I don't push hard for it, and probably am not super in tune, so it might be even high)!
There is also a study from the University of Chicago showing unprotected sex was ubiquitous among street workers. I will dig it up for if you like. You may say it is not relevent because the girls are "lower class", but in reality, others have made the interesting observation that as you go up the pay scale the tendency to use protection goes down!
As for the "suicide" risk:
Which STD are you thinking about that is so fatal that getting it would be "suicide"? Even if a provider had sex with 1,000 clients in a year and did bareback half the time, then her risk of getting HIV would be about 3 in 1000. (That's assuming hobbyists have the same HIV rate as the overall population. I bet it would be even less since homosexuals would be less likely to patronize escorts that hetrosexuals. My bet is that IV drug users are also likely to be under represented as clients (all their money going to their addiction) so my guess would be more like 1 in 1000)).
It a girl stuck to white, middle aged, middle to upper class hetrosexual professionals, it would be a very low risk population she was dealing with (at least for HIV). Not just my opinion either. STD clinics do not consider hetrosexual, non-drugging using providers/client as a high risk HIV group. They'll test you for it, but it's mostly to ease your own mind, and monitor for new outbreaks.
...And to restate and earlier point, it would certainly suck to get "HIV", but it no longer rates as "suicide". What is the super deadly STD you are thinking of?
wondergrl: Will I guess that is the sterotype that guys who pay for sex can't get it for free. Probably true in many (most?) cases. Probably more true among strip club than escort patrons.
But there are numerous examples of guys who can get it for free paying. Why? Not sure, but my guess would be the convince thing. Maybe some escorts reading this board would care to comment?
chitown & dave: To paraphrase Hollywood madam: "Celebs don't pay big bucks for very wild sex with a hot woman, they pay big $$ for escort to keep her mouth shut about it."
So, if we are to belive that these TER polls are accurate, 59% are worried about STDs, 50% never even get tested for STDs (!), and 43% have had an STD...gee, the same exact amount as have supposedly ever had BBFS from a provider. Have fun potentially getting HIV, Hep-C, Herpes, or whatever else...no thanx for me...
Yeah, good luck getting hep-C through heterosexual intercourse. Even the ultra-cautious CDC doesn't recommend condom use among discordant couples since the transmission risk is so low they can't even tell if condoms help or not. You're way more likely to die in an auto accident driving her back to your place than to get hep-C from her even if she had it.
I doubt it would have mattered much (unless you are talking about probability of being caught). I think this is more about someone having PAID SEX then whether it was legal or not. Last I heard he might not even be charged.
"chitown & dave: To paraphrase Hollywood madam: "Celebs don't pay big bucks for very wild sex with a hot woman, they pay big $$ for escort to keep her mouth shut about it."
He should have used an full service AMP, no name, no english, and they wouldn't know who the hell he was, except perhaps if he was President of the United States
Confidence alone doesn't cost that much.
You saying mid-level agencies or independents (having even less chance of a major bust) both charging in the range of 300 to 500 per session - have a higher risk of breaking confidence?
Another madamn, Heidi Fleiss is on wire services clearly saying Spitzer was looking for unprotected sex, and the the FBI wiretaps have indicated that also, and you will find at the ultra-high end, the big deal is in fact unprotected sex with supposedly safe or safer girls - because one oould reasonably argue that sex with a condom really isn't sex at all.
As I referred to before, why do you think Rush Limbaugh was flying his Gulf V down to the Domican Republic? Unprotected sex with super hot euro/eastern bloc girls would have been the big attraction,
As for the TER polls. The numbers don't seem to pose any logical inconsistencies or even be counter intuitive. The question about BBFS would, clearly, only be answered by hobbyists, while the other two questions could be answered by both hobbyists and providers. As for the two 43% numbers being the same: obviously a coincidence. (Did you miss the question "HAVE YOU EVER CAUGHT AN STD FROM A PROVIDER?". Hint only 13% said yes, and that would certainly include herpes which condoms are only 50% effective against.)
You know MisterGuy, I was thinking that a course in critical thinking might help you in making more intelligent posts here, but, now, I am worried that your IQ is so low that you won't be able to benefit... I guess you are just a lost cause.
Generally for regular hi net worth individuals, pros are much safer than affairs, however he was not only a major public figure and sitting governor of a major state who apparently was looking to run for President in 2012, but an ex-Atty General who prosecuted such cases, one who used very questionable grandsanding tactics against Wall Street firms (e.g trying companies in the press) - and did all sort of preaching about the alleged evils around him. Of course Spitzier was not just hi-worth, he was ultra-high worth, way beyond the 2 to 5 million net worth level, and I believe his family net worht to be the vicinity of the 100 million range, and therefore he should have just opted for affairs and have carefully chosen his partners
If he ran for President, all of this would hit the fan anyways 3 or 4 yrs down the road. Bet he spent over one million dollars over the alleged 10 yr time frame.
Agree Bobbyl that more unprotected goes on with providers than people realize, and no doubt with strippers (and I know this having been offered personally), and certainly the escorts on TER overhype the risk. However, I think you will find the big bucks here were being paid precisely because this is where the unprotected cost/benefit equation starts to work out more favorably for providers, and we know its certainly what most clients would want, if they could do it safely
Spitzer's wife must really be ticked when she now has to go to the clinic for the tests
Bad news is he's had to resign as Governor, will never be able to be President of the United States, could be indicted, and his wife will probably leave him.
The good news is he's now established himself as such a voracious horndog, he's probably going to have more chicks waiting in line - than Bill Clinton on a good day.
From USA Today online, this letter, apparently from a female reader:
"Why does this keep happening"... simple answer really.... Because humans, particularly the males of the species, are, quite simply, a herd of primitive, brutal, vile, perverted, insane little beasts of limited intelligence and No morals."
Notice the passion and intensity of her comments, the firt sign that the "chemistry" is getting stirred up.
I love how you dismiss anything that goes against you're own preconceived notions Bobbyl ("obviously a coincidence")...that's very "scientific" of you. Sure, have fun having unprotected sex with a group of people that willingly admit that they've either had an STD previously or they don't ever get tested (so they don't even *know* if they've ever had an STD), and let us know how that works out, you moron...lol...
I told you why it was obviously a coincidence: Providers and hobbyists answered one question, and just hobbyists the other. I know you are EXTREMELY dumb, but still, please try and keep up, ok?
Also got any idea what the testing rate, and % of people who have had an STD in the non-provider/non-hobbyist part of the population is?
Guess you forgot to get on your short bus when they were teaching logic in special ed, eh?
MisterGuy: A little more help why the 43% thing was obviously a coincidence: only 13% said they got an STD from a provider. (This already explained to you. But I guess poor reading comprehension is part of the reason your IQ is so low.)
My advice to you is to just forget about posting anymore. Your IQ is too low for a logic course to do you any good: would just be a waste of money for you. At least you could have some fun if you bought a lap dance or two with it.
OK then, let's make some assumptions, which we probably shouldn't make if we were being real scientists:
1 - Let's assume that the TER online surveys are scientifically valid (they aren't, but who cares).
2 - Let's also assume that some of the questions about STDs were indeed answered by *both* hobbyists and providers, and that both groups answered all those questions.
3 - Let's also assume that all hobbyists answered the two remaining questions that only applied to them.
So, of both hobbyists and providers:
59% are worried about STDs
50% never even bother to get tested for STDs
43% have had an STD
and in terms of hobbyists alone:
43% have supposedly ever had BBFS from a provider.
13% have caught an STD from a provider (as if they could narrow it down that far, but let's assume that they can do that as well).
I'm a lil rusty on my statistics course from college, but by my count, of the half of hobbyists & providers that have even bothered to be tested, about 2/5 have had an STD. That means that about 7/10 (or 71.5%) of the total group of hobbyists & providers have either:
-had an STD
-might have/have had an STD but don't even know (and can therefore pass that STD on to someone else)
About 1/10 hobbyists think that they actually got an STD from a provider...so only about 5.6% of the total number of hobbyists that had BBFS from a provider (2/5 of the total survey) got an STD from that provider. Are providers the only way to get an STD? Nope.
Now, if you like those odds, by all means put your dick, tongue, or whatever into any ASP that you can find. Do that though in the hope that she hasn't come in contact with an STD, that she isn't an IV drug user, that she hasn't just come back from doing the entire local amateur softball team bareback, that she hasn't just BBBJ'd shadowcat in the LD area (no offense meant), or whatever.
I personally think that unprotected sexual contact with a complete stranger that you know virtually nothing about (their background, where they're from, who they've been with & how they've been with them, etc., etc.) is a big risk in this day and age. Only people that don't care or don't know any better have sexual contact without taking the proper precautions IMO. I've never met or heard from an ASP that randomly had unprotected sexual contact with just anyone at anytime.
Let's see if you can follow all that Bobbyl. I'm not holding my breath though...you moron...lol... Still exactly ZERO strip club reviews from you BTW...have you even been to one yet?
MisterGuy: Your math is totally broken. Not surprising given your logic skills. If you have sex w anyone, provider or not (condom or no condom) you could have an STD. Condoms are not 100% effective against any STD (e.g. they can break, etc.). Also no STD test is 100% accurate either (for instance good herpes tests will run about 95% accuracy).
So 100% of anyone who has had sex with anyone (condom or not)
"might have" an STD. (Not 70%... guess your "statistics" are REALLY rusty.) Anyone who has ever been kissed (even if no sex) might also have an STD (HSV-1). In fact, 80% of the population has HSV-1 and can pass it on via oral sex.
As for the 5.6% number you made up: Remember condoms are only 50% effective against HSV and of course won't protect you from getting HSV-1 through kissing. Similarly, condoms are weak in the protection they offer against genital warts. Condoms do not offer 100% protection! So of the 13% who got an STD from a provider we have no idea if they used condoms or not (i.e. if it was from the BBFS encounter, or they got HSV-1 from kissing a provider).
If I were you I would stay away from math/statistics. Your logic skills are at about a 4 year old level. I say you should have at least 1st year college level logic as the bare minimum to be allowed to post here. You are way below that bar, and given your EXTREMELY LOW IQ, I don't think you'll ever make it! Just stick to spending your money on lap dance, and save the debating for those of us whose IQ exceeds 100.
Sure, if you want to worry about the really insignificant chance of getting an STD while wearing a condom, go for it. And go ahead and dimiss testing for STDs too..."I must be one of the 5% or so that gets a false positive"...see how that works out. I don't have an STD because I don't have unprotected sex with people that I don't know & I get tested regularly.
My math isn't broken you idiot...your mind is broken. You're the one that brought up the stupid TER surveys in some lame attempt to win an argument with Davy-boy of all people. You're the one that wanted to assume that only certain people answered certain questions (and not people that weren't either hobbyists or providers for instance).
If you want to delude yourself into thinking that you're safe having unprotected sex with an ASP, knock yourself out, literally. Have fun trying to get a BBBJ from your SO after contracting Herpes or warts, "But baby, I'm pretty sure that I'm not having an outbreak...let's go for it!" or pinning all your hopes on some experimental drug to keep you alive after you get HIV. Or, better yet, since you appear to be invincible, why not have unprotected sex with an ASP while swimming in an ocean full of sharks & waving a metal golf club in the air during a thunderstorm? Or, even better, try extreme skiing blindfolded while playing Russian Roulette..you can do it! Go back to your job at Wal-Mart now...
Insignificant chance of getting an STD? As I say condoms only offer 50% protection against HSV. That certainly ranks as significant chance in my books. Protection is similarly weak versus genital warts. Part of the reason 25% of population has HSV-2 and the majority have genital warts.
I certainly did not dismiss testing. I get tested often. I recommend others do. I brought it up to show how broken your logic was: 70% "might" have an STD is just flat out wrong. 100% "might". You, MisterGuy, "might" have an STD (e.g. herpes) but not be testing positive since the test are not 100% accurate. You "could" be one of the 5%. (Assuming you even get tested for it, since they usually won't unless you specifically ask.)
But go ahead and think condoms are 100% effective when they aren't and that you are complete safe from STDs because you use them. Don't any kissing either!
And, no one here has ever made the claim that unprotected sex is 100% safe. Even for herpes it is twice as safe. But protected sex is not "safe" either. Remember that's why they tried to get the public to call it "safer" sex, not "safe" sex.
Finally your logic is completely broken once again. You are either claiming condoms are 100% effective against STDs or that the risk is "insignificant". But yet you get tested regularly? Why is that? Like to waste time and money?
Back to special ed, or off to the strip club for lap dances for you.
Bobby's posts on this are mystifying. Surely he does not deny that unprotected sex increases the likelihood of getting a disease beyond the risk associated with wearing a condom. Surely he does not argue that getting a disease is a good thing. Of course you can have unprotected sex and have no untoward consequences -- sometimes. But you can also drive down the highway at 90 miles per hour with no seatbelt and have no consequences -- sometimes. And other times -- as NJ's Governor Corzine would tell you -- driving down the highway at 90 mph with no seatbelt can turn out to be a very, very bad idea. What exactly is the downside of wearing a condom?
We could, if you will, put the shoe on the other foot. Would Bobby be willing to be on the receiving end of another guy's dick without a condom? Probably not, I hope. So why should the women take analogous risks?
Of course, none of these posts mention the other risky aspect of Spitzer's bizzare behavior. Bareback sex also involves the risk that he would get the escort pregnant. What was he going to do if that happened?
My bet is that if Bobby were not a pseudonym, he would be reluctant to make these statements, for fear of winding up like Spitzer -- a dick no woman will want to touch.
But we can thank NY's gov for helping to coin a new term for going bareback -- "the Spritzer."
Some more broken logic care of MisterGuy: "Have fun trying to get a BBBJ from your SO after contracting Herpes or warts".
Hate to tell you this but 25% of the population has HSV-2. How many do think are not getting BBBJs from their SOs?
Also the majority of people have genital warts? Does that mean the majority of do not get BBBJs from their SOs?
I won't even begin to address your ridiculous claims about AIDS medicines, since your whole knowledge of the subject of STDs is clearly so limited. (This compounded with the fact that your logical skills are at about a 4 year old level).
njscfan: I think the problem is that you think I am making claims that I am not. Reading stuff into what I have written that isn't there. Ignoring stuff that I explicitly stated, b/c you think I am saying something I am not.
What specific claim have I made that you disagree with? (And I am going to ask you to quote in context to make sure you are not just imagining I am claiming something that I am not).
I would also warn you not assume that because MisterGuy says I advocate stuff, that I in fact do advocate something. That seems to be his debating strategy. Claim that I advocate something and hope no one will check to see if I really do or not. It's just a shame that it seems to have worked on you!
I'll state my position very plainly and clearly: bareback sex with strangers is always a bad idea, and hobbyists should always, always wear condoms. Focusing on faux "statistics" misses the forest for the trees. Is sex ever risk free? No. Neither is driving your car. But sex is certainly much riskier without a condom. Just like driving a car is much riskier without a seatbelt. And I see no downside to wearing a condom, just like I see no downside to wearing a seatbelt. I don't want to give up driving a car, but I will take the sensible precaution of wearing a seatbelt when I do so. I don't want to give up hobbying, but I will take the sensible precaution of wearing a condom when I do so. And I think any guy who hobbies without wearing a condom is flat out crazy -- needlessly increasing the risk to his own health and the health of others.
If you agree with that, then we certainly have no disagreement. But then why don't you just say so?
And if you agree that, then why did you go off on a what certainly appears to be an argument for downplaying the risks of unprotected sex, and downplaying the benefits of wearing a condom? If at the end of the day you agree we should all be wearing condoms all the time when we hobby, what are you arguing about?
You know, after I wrote the foregoing, I went back and re-examined your posts. You clearly state that you have had experience in engaging in bareback sex with prostitutes. That is idiotic and dangerous behavior. For no reason whatsoever, you are increasing the risk to your health, and you are also endangering the health of others (whether it's your wife, girlfriend or other ASPs you have sex with). I can't even describe your decision to bareback as selfish -- it's beyond that in a realm that is inexplicable.
I find equally amazing your blithe attitude to getting AIDS. You must not read the papers very frequently, nor know well anyone who has AIDS. The current class of drugs do not work on all patients. Plus the virus is always mutating, so the drugs are always failing. Plus the side effects of the drugs are severe. A recent NYT article pointed out that HIV patients on the drugs wind up with a host of health problems that make them look like they're in their 70s and 80s when they are really in their 40s and 50s. Your bland attitude to such a deadly disease is chilling.
Regardless of what you now state your position is, your actions speak louder than words. By your actions you are clearly stating that the increased risk of exposure to disease is worth it to avoid the "burden" of wearing a condom. I think you are wrong. Dead wrong.
I don't have an STD Bobbyl, but thanx for asking. "You are either claiming condoms are 100% effective against STDs"...no one is saying that, period. Accidents happen, hence the testing, asshole. And, like njscfan said, I don't feel like getting anyone pregnant thanx, hence the condom. Enjoy that case of Herpes that you obviously have Bobbyl, since you keep trying to defend it apparently..."it's no big deal, everybody's got it!"
Your complete lack of any real knowledge or skills leaves you wide open to exploiting your obvious ommisions BTW. You are about as smart Bobbyl as you are apparently cautious in your "exploits", if, in fact, there are any "exploits"...LOL... Go back to your parent's basement.
Good logic MisterGuy: I said 25% of people have herpes, not 100%. And it isn't a big deal. Why do you think STD clinics usually don't test for it unless you specifically ask (same with genital warts) and doctors generally shrug it off (does that mean they have it since they don't think it's a big deal. If they think canker sores are not a big deal does that mean they have them)?
Perhaps you can explain why you think HSV is a big deal (stigma aside). As I've said before I've been tested and don't have either HSV-1 or HSV-2. I am in a very small minority because of that and consider myself lucky. But, at the same time, I am not as PREJUDICED against those who do have it as you are. On the other hand, I do get canker sores about 4 or 5 times a year. Objectively I think that is a bigger deal than herpes would be (they last longer and are more painful: Most with herpes don't even notice it, which is why 90% of carriers don't know. I certainly know when I have canker sores). It's just about stigma, and you are contributing to it through your ignorance, so don't you try pulling any moral high ground shit on me, you fucking bigot!
BTW, thank you for admitting that the risk even with condoms is significant enough to warrant testing. Never thought you would agree with me on anything. Maybe your IQ is 75 just when I was about to rate it 70....
I also like the logic in your last paragraph: Apparently I have never had any "exploits" but somehow got HSV-2 (since I think it is about as big a deal as HSV-1) anyway.... That one is just laughable.
Dude, I must say I have debated alot of dumb people in my time, but you are down in the bottom 1% in terms of logic skills. In fact, you are so dumb, that arguing against you isn't even a challenge. Most people will stay stuff that is at least 80% correct but screw up the other 20%. With you numbers are reversed.
Anyway, put up on your football helmet, and remember to catch that short bus for your logic lesson in special ed!
"I'll state my position very plainly and clearly: bareback sex with strangers is always a bad idea, and hobbyists should always, always wear condoms. Focusing on faux "statistics" misses the forest for the trees. Is sex ever risk free? No. Neither is driving your car. But sex is certainly much riskier without a condom. Just like driving a car is much riskier without a seatbelt. And I see no downside to wearing a condom, just like I see no downside to wearing a seatbelt. I don't want to give up driving a car, but I will take the sensible precaution of wearing a seatbelt when I do so. I don't want to give up hobbying, but I will take the sensible precaution of wearing a condom when I do so. And I think any guy who hobbies without wearing a condom is flat out crazy -- needlessly increasing the risk to his own health and the health of others. "
Your position is certainly reasonable. However, people have different levels of risk tolerance, and weight the reward side of the risk/reward equation differently than you do. My goal here has been to make people objectively aware of the risks, rather than subscribing to hype such as "having unprotected sex with a stranger is equivalent to suicide". Hardly.
Let's consider BBBJ for instance. Even amongst people equally knowledge about the facts regarding the risk, some consider it an acceptable risk and some do not. Who is right? I say it's subjective. Say that the people willing to take risk are wrong, is like saying sky divers are wrong compared to people not willing to jump out of a plane. That is my point SUBJECTIVITY. Never have I said don't never use protection, or have unprotected sex with strangers. That is an individual decision. I have not even mentioned my criteria for when to use protection and when not. Just MisterGuy jumping to conclusions.
Yes, there are rewards to not using condoms: i.e. it feels better. For some the pure rush of the risk is reward enough. Who is right? I say it's subjective, and that Spritzer was not putting himself at considerable risk. (Now the fact that he had a wife who he might not have discussed the matter with would make him a douche bag, since she certainly had the right to have a say in her acceptable level of risk.)
So that's the bottom line: People subjectively weight the risk versus reward differently. I just want them to be educated about the objective facts and not subscribe to hype. (I have stated facts that argue both for and against use of protection). I will be tolerate of people's risk versus reward perference, but I will not tolerant ignorance or rhetorical non-sense or poor logic as MisterGuy repeatedly demonstrates.
^^^ small correction to above I meant "Spritzer was not putting himself at considerable risk for HIV. For herpes, well he is almost certain to have got it either way."
Sure, Herpes & warts are no big deal...tell that to your gf Bobbyl, and I must be prejudiced against those that have them...LOL! The things that come out of your mouth are unbelievable! How far are you willing to go down this hole that you've dug for yourself?? Your "goal" here is apparently to prove how you can wheel all over the place on the issues in hopes of making any sense about anything, and it's ridculous.
"Say that the people willing to take risk are wrong, is like saying sky divers are wrong compared to people not willing to jump out of a plane."
No, maybe try having BBBJ is more like jumping out a plane without a parachute on while having a CBJ is like jumping out a plane with a parachute. Sure, you could end up living from a short free fall without a parachute, but I wouldn't want to try...you should though, definitely. You won't state your real opinions here simply because you know if you did, they would be ridiculed...like your opinion that "Strippers are a bunch of degenerates". I will not tolerate hypocrisy, period. You're trying to have it every which way that you can on these issues here Bobbyl.
I'd rather not have ANY STD than very much...you obviously don't care that much...that's great, so good luck with that. Getting tested for STDs is just smart, period, which is why I balked so much at those bogus TER "stats" that apparently showed that half of the people don't even bother to get tested.
MisterGuy: I've explained to many people why herpes is not a big deal, and how many people have it, and how low the transmission rate is (in the absence of outbreaks). People with normal intelligence are often quite surprised by the facts, once the hype has dissolved. Even people who you would expect to better educated: like strippers and their clients. Same with HIV and hep-C, which people seem to know too little about.
*****>
Now, beyond the stigma, can you please explain to me why you think herpes is such a big deal? Would you rather have it or canker sores. (Make the big assumption you don't have herpes already. You would be in a small minority if true.)
<*****
Also good logic once again: I won't state my real opinions (I am scared) yet I have openly said that "strippers are a bunch of degenerates". What's the most sentences you think you post without a blatant contradiction and committing a logical debacle? (Btw, I can tell that you are the one scared to state your real opinions, due to the obvious contradiction. A textbook example of projection.)
I'd rather not have any STD either. Herpes won't be a big deal. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis are all easily treatable with antibiotics, so not that huge a concern (although it will increase the small chance of getting HIV later). Hep-C would suck about as much as HIV, but I am way more likely to get hit by lightning, so don't even think about that one. As for Hep-B, even though I discussed my behavior at the local STD clinic they determined I was too low risk to warrant vaccination. HIV would definitely suck, but won't be the end of the world. About as bad as having diabetes. Warts probably won't even have any symptoms. Haven't been tested for that one, and before you get all high and mighty I doubt you have either.
I would also not like to get in a car accident when I drive to the strip club tonight, but I am not going to say at home out of fear. Some risk are acceptable some are not. And different weight it different.
P.S. sorry you are a retard and ignoramus and bigot, MisterGuy.
Wow, you're really going to continue down this path to nowhere? Gee whiz...why should we *not* be in favor of getting an STD for which there's no actual cure...hmmmmm... I'll be waiting for your pamphlet that sez something like, "Hey kids! Herpes...it's really no big deal. Now run along and have unprotected sex." I guess the same goes for HIV and Hep-C in your book too, huh? I'd rather have a hang nail thanx...man you love beating strawmen don't you?
Yea, you won't come right out and say what you're really for and against when it comes to sexual behavior because of the berating that you've gotten for your previous outrageous statements...that much is clear. Have fun trying to turn that around on me somehow and then try to shoot the messenger...lol...
Chlamydia...good luck trying to see the signs of that before you pass it on to one of your gf's. Hep-C...sure, it can never happen to you...you'll win the lottery for sure first. I love how you have to *continually* minimize HIV as much as possible to soothe your own conscience...unbelievable. Thanx for letting me know that somehow you know what I have and haven't been tested for...LOL! I suggest that you drive to the strip club with your eyes closed...you can do it!
You are fitting right in with some of the other wingnuts that post here. You post, then you follow up your own post with another post. All those voices in your head must be hard to keep track of. Sorry that all you are left with at the end of the day is silly name calling that will get you nowhere Bobbyl...
MisterGuy: I guess you win the most ironic post in all of history award:
"man you love beating strawmen don't you?"
Jesus fucking christ! Too funny...
I gave up taking you seriously long ago. I just leave you with the image of yourself:
Wearing an oversized hockey helmet, waiting for the short bus to come and pick you up to take you to your logic class in special ed...
In regard genetical herpes, (one of the big fears of married guys despite the actual disease for many being mostly an annoyance) its does seem the media (maybe with some drug companies selling relatd drugs) to a large degree has vastly overhyped the odds of actually picking this up. (of even showing up if picked up) For example, when you look at what either the official govt info or the info from various authorities on the web, they all claim it can be picked up very very easily, regardless of whether the spreader has symptoms or doesn't show symptoms. Yet, if this were true, why is a such a non-issue for most of the hobbyists and providers posting on TER. If the claimed facts were what they're purported to be, this "incurable" disease would be everywhere among those groups. These married guys on TER who've done over 100 pros - why don't they all have it? Also a major story the other day about 40% of teens with STDs, well looking at the details that said it was approx 2% or therebabouts of that group having herpes, which seems way too low - if one were to believe the hype.
HSV, like HPV, is most often asymptomatic. Hence most who have it do not know. In the case of HSV-2 90% of those who have it do not know. Part of the reason is that unless you specifically ask to be tested for it or are symptomatic you will probably not be tested for it. (For instance, although our local STD clinic is one of the best in the world, their standard suite for non-drug using heterosexuals in the absence of symptoms is chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV. NOT HPV, HSV, or any of the hepatitis strains.)
Another fact, is that according to those at the clinic, heterosexuals (even hobbyists) typically do not get tested in the absence of symptoms (HIV being the exception.)
Also note that, barring outbreaks, the transmission rate for HSV is very low: About the same as for HIV. About 5 in 10,000 female to male, and twice that male to female.
So my guess is that many hobbyists have it, but are asymptomatic, and not being tested for it. However, since the transmission rate is so low, it takes a while to pass it on their wives, and even then she is likely to be asymptomatic too, so won't notice.
However, it does happen. We do see stories on the local boards about hobbyists having to retire because they got caught because they passed HSV along to their wives.
Another interesting study I read showed that 80% of people who have had 60 or more partners have HSV-2. That would include nearly all providers, and probably a good portion of hobbyists.
OTOH, it's interesting that HSV-2 rates peaks around 80%. I think some people just have built in genetic immunity to it, in the same way that some are immune to HIV due to the CRC5-D32 mutation. My guess is that herpes immunity is higher than HIV immunity.
Another conjecture of mine is that white people are genetically more likely to have STD immunities than black people. Not trying to be racist here: Black people, by contrast, have greater resistances to other disease like malaria.
As for the high school study. That is interesting. Certain selected subsets of the population have much lower HSV rates than others. For instance, white college students are something like 4%. Obviously an important variable governing the spread of a disease is the amount of people who already have it. (Man, I sometimes I wish I had become an epidemiologist this stuff is so fascinating.)
Bobby1 - you got some interesting stats however it simply proves the the entire Herpes debate is a muddled mess. I am not a hobbyist, but I read the TER board, and yes its definitely happens and I've seen some references (yes some quit because of it), but very very rarely a talked about issue there. Yet, if your "80% of people who have had 60 or more partners have HSV-2." study is correct -that alone would have to make it a big deal for the married guys on that site because with most of these hobbyists it would only be a matter of WHEN not IF they catch it. Note that the mere chance it might be latent or hidden would not likely put them more at ease. Also that would (as you've said) also mean that every provider has it. However, if that number were true and TER posters believed it - they would have to be part of the everyday conversation. since I've not heard that condoms have little ir any impact on herpes. Note on TER they're mostly condom worshipers, and will rip to thread any opposing comments ever questioning mandatory use. Also you also reference a "About 5 in 10,000 female to male" transmission rate, yet if its that low why would 80% individuals (in this case males) who had 60 or more partners necessarily have it. It seems that that 80% number is questionable
Further muddling the issue, its also claimed that HSV-1 and HSV-2 are in essence the same disease anyways, despite obvous location differences on the body, and pratically everyone has some kind of HSV-1 already, unless you live in a plastic bubble.
60 comments
Latest
"Consider this my unofficial statement.
"First of all, to say there was literally a ring of prostitutes for me to sample like an endless buffet, is absurd. It was never more than two or three girls at a time. So by my calculations that makes it, at most, a prostitution prism.
"But more importantly this isn’t my fault; it’s just another example of the Republican Party doing whatever they can to discredit me, the Democratic Party and my reforms on government. They knew that I like to have sex with dirty whores and guess what, when I had one of my infamous dirty whore cravings, magically many of them were available in an elaborate online network.
"The report mentioned a specific encounter I had with a woman on the evening of February 13th. As many of you know out there, this is a day officially referred to as Cheaters Day — when men take out their mistresses for Valentine’s Day, because on the 14th they have to be with their boring wives. Well doesn’t that tell you that I at least treated this whore well? It implies a degree of amour, of thinking of this woman of the night as more than a few lady holes."
The mind reels.
By the way, Spitzer's babe apparently was more towards the middle of the pack, because he paid $4,300, and this included her train fare from NY to Washington, D.C. and back.
I can't wait to see the portfolio in Playboy. I'll probably buy the rag for the first time in 15 years.
I'm amazed that these men don't have better sense. Airport bathroom? Telephone call to online hooker service which you find ON THE INTERNET? Geez. If you're a governor, don't you have a little more sense? And maybe a staffer or two to help you out? I can see that the international call-girl ring could be a US security risk -- bringing in Ukrainians to service the dignitaries at major White House parties and at embassies in Washington, that sort of thing. So it makes sense the FBI or some other government watchdog would be trailing it, running a sting. What I don't get is, how can a dang GOVERNOR be so stupid as to get caught? I mean, dude, don't you have INTERNS?
Another way in which I'm feeling superior to Mr. Elliot this morning...I use a "Boost" type of pre-paid telephone, rather than my regular cell phone, if I am making potentially troublesome calls. As far as I know, the "pre-loaded" type of phone is untraceable to me. The closest they could get to me, I suppose, would be the store where I bought it. But I use cash for the phone and cash for the minutes, so as far I know, it is an anonymous transaction. This hopefully avoids my voice being on calls that the FBI has transcribed for Mr. Spitzer (see thesmokinggun.com).
*He left a nice clear paper trail for anyone to follow by making payments by switching money around accounts (instead of just paying in cash). The money movement is what got him in trouble -- it drew the attention of the banks, who in turn reported the transactions to the feds.
*He used an agency on the theory it provided greater discetion, when any fool should know the opposite is true. Agencies involve lots of people, and so there's a better chance some person will tattle. Here, an ex-escort gave the feds enough information to justify wire taps on the agency's cell phones. If he had used an independent (and there are many in NY and WDC) he would have avoided that.
*He way overpaid. $4300? WTF?!? Some of the best providers in the world are on the east coast and don't charge anything like that. He doesn't even have the excuse of losing his head in the moment -- he planned the whole thing out well in advance.
*He paid for 4 hours, and not surprisingly used less than 2. What fool would hire for a 4 hour date?
*He disrespected the girls. It appears Spitzer had a reputation for being "difficult," and apparently liked to bareback. That kind of behavior would have caught up with him eventually one day, even if the feds hadn't. This really was a violation of several rules at once: always practice safe sex; always comply with the provider's limits, whatever they are; always respect the provider. Apart from losing his office and marriage, he's also going to be blacklisted on the provider boards, and then he'll really be sorry.
Twenty-five years ago, I prowled the Walgreen's stores for rubbers so I could be ready for sex; now it's the same thing, except I'm in search of cheap cell phones, for the same reason. Life is strange beyond imagination.
Your overlooking an important factor. The purpose of many of these high end escort services is not just high quality girls, its for customers to have the option of having unprotected sex, where women that can some assurance are not carrying some major disease.
Read the transcripts, its clear Spitzer habit or pattern was to purchase unprotected sex, and this is was likely here also.
here's a portion from wire stories:
(Later, the agent told "Kristen" that the client would "ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe -- you know -- I mean that ... very basic things. ... 'Kristen' responded: 'I have a way of dealing with that. ... I'd be like, listen dude, you really want the sex?' ... You know what I mean.'")
Little doubt she did what the client wanted, despite her claims.
Ultra-rich (Spitzer's worth in the 10's of millions) believe they should be able to have real sex not just covered sex, which some would argue is not even sex at all.
As an example (and they're everywhere) would be several of the high end sex resorts in the Domican Republic (one of which I believe Rush Limbaugh was headed to) when he got stopped by customs for his Viagra after exiting his (NetJets timeshared) Gulf V Jet
See http://www.exoticretreat.net/rates.mgi. They do all sorts of testing on the girls, stock from mostly eastern europe, and the clients tend to be very wealthy and are used to getting what they want.
The high end upcale agencies have very selective girls an are very selective about clients, so there is a built-in protection factor, and some in fact do test and they sell that as part of the deal.
No doubt, based upon new reports, Spitzer wasn't just a hobbyist, he was junkie hobbyist. Bet you he spent over a million dollars over the 10 yr period he is alleged to have been in the hobby.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/poll/poll…
Plenty of personal and anecdotal evidence to support the claim that this is true as well.
As for it being tantamount to suicide: That is a bit of exaggeration. HIV is the worst that could happen, and, fortunately, the strain we have here in North America is very hard to transmit heterosexually (especially among white people). Even in this worst case scenario the HIV medicines have gotten so good that life expectancy is now only a few years less for those who are HIV+ then those who are HIV-. Hep-C might be as bad now, but it is not clear that it can be transmitted heterosexually (if it can transmissibility is surely even lower than HIV). (OTOH, do not share drug paraphernalia needles, crack pipes, straws to snort coke with them.) Herpes is the most realistic threat, and that, beyond the stigma, is objectively almost always little more than a nuisance.
Yup, the OVERALL "suicide" risk could be overstated and certainly the media overhypes it, but certainly not in a case for example where a provider is seeing 100 random new clients a year, and she's going bareback on FS with the bulk of them.
Spitzer was clearly a hobbyist/sex addict of sorts seeing high volumes of different women - and apparently he was getting much of it unprotected, which means its "real sex" - not protected sex which arguably isn't real sex at all. He obviously used super-upscales in part because the bare-back option was more viable. This is the major enticement factor that is being used by many of these agencies to entice the very wealthy to take part on this activity.
Hes the gov of NY and couldnt freakin get laid for free?
Most will not do it with a new customer on the first "date" proactively. But, in my own experience, about 15% will send you "the vibe" that is available (I don't push hard for it, and probably am not super in tune, so it might be even high)!
There is also a study from the University of Chicago showing unprotected sex was ubiquitous among street workers. I will dig it up for if you like. You may say it is not relevent because the girls are "lower class", but in reality, others have made the interesting observation that as you go up the pay scale the tendency to use protection goes down!
As for the "suicide" risk:
Which STD are you thinking about that is so fatal that getting it would be "suicide"? Even if a provider had sex with 1,000 clients in a year and did bareback half the time, then her risk of getting HIV would be about 3 in 1000. (That's assuming hobbyists have the same HIV rate as the overall population. I bet it would be even less since homosexuals would be less likely to patronize escorts that hetrosexuals. My bet is that IV drug users are also likely to be under represented as clients (all their money going to their addiction) so my guess would be more like 1 in 1000)).
It a girl stuck to white, middle aged, middle to upper class hetrosexual professionals, it would be a very low risk population she was dealing with (at least for HIV). Not just my opinion either. STD clinics do not consider hetrosexual, non-drugging using providers/client as a high risk HIV group. They'll test you for it, but it's mostly to ease your own mind, and monitor for new outbreaks.
But there are numerous examples of guys who can get it for free paying. Why? Not sure, but my guess would be the convince thing. Maybe some escorts reading this board would care to comment?
He should have used an full service AMP, no name, no english, and they wouldn't know who the hell he was, except perhaps if he was President of the United States
Confidence alone doesn't cost that much.
You saying mid-level agencies or independents (having even less chance of a major bust) both charging in the range of 300 to 500 per session - have a higher risk of breaking confidence?
Another madamn, Heidi Fleiss is on wire services clearly saying Spitzer was looking for unprotected sex, and the the FBI wiretaps have indicated that also, and you will find at the ultra-high end, the big deal is in fact unprotected sex with supposedly safe or safer girls - because one oould reasonably argue that sex with a condom really isn't sex at all.
As I referred to before, why do you think Rush Limbaugh was flying his Gulf V down to the Domican Republic? Unprotected sex with super hot euro/eastern bloc girls would have been the big attraction,
You know MisterGuy, I was thinking that a course in critical thinking might help you in making more intelligent posts here, but, now, I am worried that your IQ is so low that you won't be able to benefit... I guess you are just a lost cause.
If he ran for President, all of this would hit the fan anyways 3 or 4 yrs down the road. Bet he spent over one million dollars over the alleged 10 yr time frame.
Spitzer's wife must really be ticked when she now has to go to the clinic for the tests
Bad news is he's had to resign as Governor, will never be able to be President of the United States, could be indicted, and his wife will probably leave him.
The good news is he's now established himself as such a voracious horndog, he's probably going to have more chicks waiting in line - than Bill Clinton on a good day.
From USA Today online, this letter, apparently from a female reader:
"Why does this keep happening"... simple answer really.... Because humans, particularly the males of the species, are, quite simply, a herd of primitive, brutal, vile, perverted, insane little beasts of limited intelligence and No morals."
Notice the passion and intensity of her comments, the firt sign that the "chemistry" is getting stirred up.
I told you why it was obviously a coincidence: Providers and hobbyists answered one question, and just hobbyists the other. I know you are EXTREMELY dumb, but still, please try and keep up, ok?
Also got any idea what the testing rate, and % of people who have had an STD in the non-provider/non-hobbyist part of the population is?
Guess you forgot to get on your short bus when they were teaching logic in special ed, eh?
My advice to you is to just forget about posting anymore. Your IQ is too low for a logic course to do you any good: would just be a waste of money for you. At least you could have some fun if you bought a lap dance or two with it.
1 - Let's assume that the TER online surveys are scientifically valid (they aren't, but who cares).
2 - Let's also assume that some of the questions about STDs were indeed answered by *both* hobbyists and providers, and that both groups answered all those questions.
3 - Let's also assume that all hobbyists answered the two remaining questions that only applied to them.
So, of both hobbyists and providers:
59% are worried about STDs
50% never even bother to get tested for STDs
43% have had an STD
and in terms of hobbyists alone:
43% have supposedly ever had BBFS from a provider.
13% have caught an STD from a provider (as if they could narrow it down that far, but let's assume that they can do that as well).
I'm a lil rusty on my statistics course from college, but by my count, of the half of hobbyists & providers that have even bothered to be tested, about 2/5 have had an STD. That means that about 7/10 (or 71.5%) of the total group of hobbyists & providers have either:
-had an STD
-might have/have had an STD but don't even know (and can therefore pass that STD on to someone else)
About 1/10 hobbyists think that they actually got an STD from a provider...so only about 5.6% of the total number of hobbyists that had BBFS from a provider (2/5 of the total survey) got an STD from that provider. Are providers the only way to get an STD? Nope.
Now, if you like those odds, by all means put your dick, tongue, or whatever into any ASP that you can find. Do that though in the hope that she hasn't come in contact with an STD, that she isn't an IV drug user, that she hasn't just come back from doing the entire local amateur softball team bareback, that she hasn't just BBBJ'd shadowcat in the LD area (no offense meant), or whatever.
I personally think that unprotected sexual contact with a complete stranger that you know virtually nothing about (their background, where they're from, who they've been with & how they've been with them, etc., etc.) is a big risk in this day and age. Only people that don't care or don't know any better have sexual contact without taking the proper precautions IMO. I've never met or heard from an ASP that randomly had unprotected sexual contact with just anyone at anytime.
Let's see if you can follow all that Bobbyl. I'm not holding my breath though...you moron...lol... Still exactly ZERO strip club reviews from you BTW...have you even been to one yet?
So 100% of anyone who has had sex with anyone (condom or not)
"might have" an STD. (Not 70%... guess your "statistics" are REALLY rusty.) Anyone who has ever been kissed (even if no sex) might also have an STD (HSV-1). In fact, 80% of the population has HSV-1 and can pass it on via oral sex.
As for the 5.6% number you made up: Remember condoms are only 50% effective against HSV and of course won't protect you from getting HSV-1 through kissing. Similarly, condoms are weak in the protection they offer against genital warts. Condoms do not offer 100% protection! So of the 13% who got an STD from a provider we have no idea if they used condoms or not (i.e. if it was from the BBFS encounter, or they got HSV-1 from kissing a provider).
If I were you I would stay away from math/statistics. Your logic skills are at about a 4 year old level. I say you should have at least 1st year college level logic as the bare minimum to be allowed to post here. You are way below that bar, and given your EXTREMELY LOW IQ, I don't think you'll ever make it! Just stick to spending your money on lap dance, and save the debating for those of us whose IQ exceeds 100.
My math isn't broken you idiot...your mind is broken. You're the one that brought up the stupid TER surveys in some lame attempt to win an argument with Davy-boy of all people. You're the one that wanted to assume that only certain people answered certain questions (and not people that weren't either hobbyists or providers for instance).
If you want to delude yourself into thinking that you're safe having unprotected sex with an ASP, knock yourself out, literally. Have fun trying to get a BBBJ from your SO after contracting Herpes or warts, "But baby, I'm pretty sure that I'm not having an outbreak...let's go for it!" or pinning all your hopes on some experimental drug to keep you alive after you get HIV. Or, better yet, since you appear to be invincible, why not have unprotected sex with an ASP while swimming in an ocean full of sharks & waving a metal golf club in the air during a thunderstorm? Or, even better, try extreme skiing blindfolded while playing Russian Roulette..you can do it! Go back to your job at Wal-Mart now...
I certainly did not dismiss testing. I get tested often. I recommend others do. I brought it up to show how broken your logic was: 70% "might" have an STD is just flat out wrong. 100% "might". You, MisterGuy, "might" have an STD (e.g. herpes) but not be testing positive since the test are not 100% accurate. You "could" be one of the 5%. (Assuming you even get tested for it, since they usually won't unless you specifically ask.)
But go ahead and think condoms are 100% effective when they aren't and that you are complete safe from STDs because you use them. Don't any kissing either!
And, no one here has ever made the claim that unprotected sex is 100% safe. Even for herpes it is twice as safe. But protected sex is not "safe" either. Remember that's why they tried to get the public to call it "safer" sex, not "safe" sex.
Finally your logic is completely broken once again. You are either claiming condoms are 100% effective against STDs or that the risk is "insignificant". But yet you get tested regularly? Why is that? Like to waste time and money?
Back to special ed, or off to the strip club for lap dances for you.
We could, if you will, put the shoe on the other foot. Would Bobby be willing to be on the receiving end of another guy's dick without a condom? Probably not, I hope. So why should the women take analogous risks?
Of course, none of these posts mention the other risky aspect of Spitzer's bizzare behavior. Bareback sex also involves the risk that he would get the escort pregnant. What was he going to do if that happened?
My bet is that if Bobby were not a pseudonym, he would be reluctant to make these statements, for fear of winding up like Spitzer -- a dick no woman will want to touch.
But we can thank NY's gov for helping to coin a new term for going bareback -- "the Spritzer."
Hate to tell you this but 25% of the population has HSV-2. How many do think are not getting BBBJs from their SOs?
Also the majority of people have genital warts? Does that mean the majority of do not get BBBJs from their SOs?
I won't even begin to address your ridiculous claims about AIDS medicines, since your whole knowledge of the subject of STDs is clearly so limited. (This compounded with the fact that your logical skills are at about a 4 year old level).
What specific claim have I made that you disagree with? (And I am going to ask you to quote in context to make sure you are not just imagining I am claiming something that I am not).
I would also warn you not assume that because MisterGuy says I advocate stuff, that I in fact do advocate something. That seems to be his debating strategy. Claim that I advocate something and hope no one will check to see if I really do or not. It's just a shame that it seems to have worked on you!
I'll state my position very plainly and clearly: bareback sex with strangers is always a bad idea, and hobbyists should always, always wear condoms. Focusing on faux "statistics" misses the forest for the trees. Is sex ever risk free? No. Neither is driving your car. But sex is certainly much riskier without a condom. Just like driving a car is much riskier without a seatbelt. And I see no downside to wearing a condom, just like I see no downside to wearing a seatbelt. I don't want to give up driving a car, but I will take the sensible precaution of wearing a seatbelt when I do so. I don't want to give up hobbying, but I will take the sensible precaution of wearing a condom when I do so. And I think any guy who hobbies without wearing a condom is flat out crazy -- needlessly increasing the risk to his own health and the health of others.
If you agree with that, then we certainly have no disagreement. But then why don't you just say so?
And if you agree that, then why did you go off on a what certainly appears to be an argument for downplaying the risks of unprotected sex, and downplaying the benefits of wearing a condom? If at the end of the day you agree we should all be wearing condoms all the time when we hobby, what are you arguing about?
****************************************************************************
You know, after I wrote the foregoing, I went back and re-examined your posts. You clearly state that you have had experience in engaging in bareback sex with prostitutes. That is idiotic and dangerous behavior. For no reason whatsoever, you are increasing the risk to your health, and you are also endangering the health of others (whether it's your wife, girlfriend or other ASPs you have sex with). I can't even describe your decision to bareback as selfish -- it's beyond that in a realm that is inexplicable.
I find equally amazing your blithe attitude to getting AIDS. You must not read the papers very frequently, nor know well anyone who has AIDS. The current class of drugs do not work on all patients. Plus the virus is always mutating, so the drugs are always failing. Plus the side effects of the drugs are severe. A recent NYT article pointed out that HIV patients on the drugs wind up with a host of health problems that make them look like they're in their 70s and 80s when they are really in their 40s and 50s. Your bland attitude to such a deadly disease is chilling.
Regardless of what you now state your position is, your actions speak louder than words. By your actions you are clearly stating that the increased risk of exposure to disease is worth it to avoid the "burden" of wearing a condom. I think you are wrong. Dead wrong.
Your complete lack of any real knowledge or skills leaves you wide open to exploiting your obvious ommisions BTW. You are about as smart Bobbyl as you are apparently cautious in your "exploits", if, in fact, there are any "exploits"...LOL... Go back to your parent's basement.
Perhaps you can explain why you think HSV is a big deal (stigma aside). As I've said before I've been tested and don't have either HSV-1 or HSV-2. I am in a very small minority because of that and consider myself lucky. But, at the same time, I am not as PREJUDICED against those who do have it as you are. On the other hand, I do get canker sores about 4 or 5 times a year. Objectively I think that is a bigger deal than herpes would be (they last longer and are more painful: Most with herpes don't even notice it, which is why 90% of carriers don't know. I certainly know when I have canker sores). It's just about stigma, and you are contributing to it through your ignorance, so don't you try pulling any moral high ground shit on me, you fucking bigot!
BTW, thank you for admitting that the risk even with condoms is significant enough to warrant testing. Never thought you would agree with me on anything. Maybe your IQ is 75 just when I was about to rate it 70....
I also like the logic in your last paragraph: Apparently I have never had any "exploits" but somehow got HSV-2 (since I think it is about as big a deal as HSV-1) anyway.... That one is just laughable.
Dude, I must say I have debated alot of dumb people in my time, but you are down in the bottom 1% in terms of logic skills. In fact, you are so dumb, that arguing against you isn't even a challenge. Most people will stay stuff that is at least 80% correct but screw up the other 20%. With you numbers are reversed.
Anyway, put up on your football helmet, and remember to catch that short bus for your logic lesson in special ed!
"I'll state my position very plainly and clearly: bareback sex with strangers is always a bad idea, and hobbyists should always, always wear condoms. Focusing on faux "statistics" misses the forest for the trees. Is sex ever risk free? No. Neither is driving your car. But sex is certainly much riskier without a condom. Just like driving a car is much riskier without a seatbelt. And I see no downside to wearing a condom, just like I see no downside to wearing a seatbelt. I don't want to give up driving a car, but I will take the sensible precaution of wearing a seatbelt when I do so. I don't want to give up hobbying, but I will take the sensible precaution of wearing a condom when I do so. And I think any guy who hobbies without wearing a condom is flat out crazy -- needlessly increasing the risk to his own health and the health of others. "
Your position is certainly reasonable. However, people have different levels of risk tolerance, and weight the reward side of the risk/reward equation differently than you do. My goal here has been to make people objectively aware of the risks, rather than subscribing to hype such as "having unprotected sex with a stranger is equivalent to suicide". Hardly.
Let's consider BBBJ for instance. Even amongst people equally knowledge about the facts regarding the risk, some consider it an acceptable risk and some do not. Who is right? I say it's subjective. Say that the people willing to take risk are wrong, is like saying sky divers are wrong compared to people not willing to jump out of a plane. That is my point SUBJECTIVITY. Never have I said don't never use protection, or have unprotected sex with strangers. That is an individual decision. I have not even mentioned my criteria for when to use protection and when not. Just MisterGuy jumping to conclusions.
Yes, there are rewards to not using condoms: i.e. it feels better. For some the pure rush of the risk is reward enough. Who is right? I say it's subjective, and that Spritzer was not putting himself at considerable risk. (Now the fact that he had a wife who he might not have discussed the matter with would make him a douche bag, since she certainly had the right to have a say in her acceptable level of risk.)
So that's the bottom line: People subjectively weight the risk versus reward differently. I just want them to be educated about the objective facts and not subscribe to hype. (I have stated facts that argue both for and against use of protection). I will be tolerate of people's risk versus reward perference, but I will not tolerant ignorance or rhetorical non-sense or poor logic as MisterGuy repeatedly demonstrates.
"Say that the people willing to take risk are wrong, is like saying sky divers are wrong compared to people not willing to jump out of a plane."
No, maybe try having BBBJ is more like jumping out a plane without a parachute on while having a CBJ is like jumping out a plane with a parachute. Sure, you could end up living from a short free fall without a parachute, but I wouldn't want to try...you should though, definitely. You won't state your real opinions here simply because you know if you did, they would be ridiculed...like your opinion that "Strippers are a bunch of degenerates". I will not tolerate hypocrisy, period. You're trying to have it every which way that you can on these issues here Bobbyl.
I'd rather not have ANY STD than very much...you obviously don't care that much...that's great, so good luck with that. Getting tested for STDs is just smart, period, which is why I balked so much at those bogus TER "stats" that apparently showed that half of the people don't even bother to get tested.
*****>
Now, beyond the stigma, can you please explain to me why you think herpes is such a big deal? Would you rather have it or canker sores. (Make the big assumption you don't have herpes already. You would be in a small minority if true.)
<*****
Also good logic once again: I won't state my real opinions (I am scared) yet I have openly said that "strippers are a bunch of degenerates". What's the most sentences you think you post without a blatant contradiction and committing a logical debacle? (Btw, I can tell that you are the one scared to state your real opinions, due to the obvious contradiction. A textbook example of projection.)
I would also not like to get in a car accident when I drive to the strip club tonight, but I am not going to say at home out of fear. Some risk are acceptable some are not. And different weight it different.
P.S. sorry you are a retard and ignoramus and bigot, MisterGuy.
Yea, you won't come right out and say what you're really for and against when it comes to sexual behavior because of the berating that you've gotten for your previous outrageous statements...that much is clear. Have fun trying to turn that around on me somehow and then try to shoot the messenger...lol...
Chlamydia...good luck trying to see the signs of that before you pass it on to one of your gf's. Hep-C...sure, it can never happen to you...you'll win the lottery for sure first. I love how you have to *continually* minimize HIV as much as possible to soothe your own conscience...unbelievable. Thanx for letting me know that somehow you know what I have and haven't been tested for...LOL! I suggest that you drive to the strip club with your eyes closed...you can do it!
You are fitting right in with some of the other wingnuts that post here. You post, then you follow up your own post with another post. All those voices in your head must be hard to keep track of. Sorry that all you are left with at the end of the day is silly name calling that will get you nowhere Bobbyl...
"man you love beating strawmen don't you?"
Jesus fucking christ! Too funny...
I gave up taking you seriously long ago. I just leave you with the image of yourself:
Wearing an oversized hockey helmet, waiting for the short bus to come and pick you up to take you to your logic class in special ed...
Another fact, is that according to those at the clinic, heterosexuals (even hobbyists) typically do not get tested in the absence of symptoms (HIV being the exception.)
Also note that, barring outbreaks, the transmission rate for HSV is very low: About the same as for HIV. About 5 in 10,000 female to male, and twice that male to female.
So my guess is that many hobbyists have it, but are asymptomatic, and not being tested for it. However, since the transmission rate is so low, it takes a while to pass it on their wives, and even then she is likely to be asymptomatic too, so won't notice.
However, it does happen. We do see stories on the local boards about hobbyists having to retire because they got caught because they passed HSV along to their wives.
Another interesting study I read showed that 80% of people who have had 60 or more partners have HSV-2. That would include nearly all providers, and probably a good portion of hobbyists.
OTOH, it's interesting that HSV-2 rates peaks around 80%. I think some people just have built in genetic immunity to it, in the same way that some are immune to HIV due to the CRC5-D32 mutation. My guess is that herpes immunity is higher than HIV immunity.
Another conjecture of mine is that white people are genetically more likely to have STD immunities than black people. Not trying to be racist here: Black people, by contrast, have greater resistances to other disease like malaria.
As for the high school study. That is interesting. Certain selected subsets of the population have much lower HSV rates than others. For instance, white college students are something like 4%. Obviously an important variable governing the spread of a disease is the amount of people who already have it. (Man, I sometimes I wish I had become an epidemiologist this stuff is so fascinating.)
Further muddling the issue, its also claimed that HSV-1 and HSV-2 are in essence the same disease anyways, despite obvous location differences on the body, and pratically everyone has some kind of HSV-1 already, unless you live in a plastic bubble.