CONDOMNATION BBFS

Why would I risk it?
Because it feels soooo goood, and as a straight man I am far less likely to get any STD's. I figure that any woman who chooses to provide is willing to accept any risk that she subjects herself to. Originally Posted by LadiesFan

Damn dude, you really need to read up on herpes. Sure, the odds are slim you'll contract HIV, but it's still possible. However, the odds of herpes are very high indeed. Once you get that shit, there's no getting rid of it. Seems like I read an article that suggests as much as 20% of the population is infected with herpes. Keep taking chances and you'll soon be one of them, if you're not already.

personal responsibility.... get some

People have heated debates on this subject but rarely does anyone think to present any statistics to back up their opinion.

Studies show that the risk of HIV transmission is reduced by a factor of about 5 by consistent use of condoms, e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11869658.

The risk of acquiring HIV could be roughly approximated as a product of three factors: number of sexual acts x probability partner is HIV positive x reduction factor for condom use. As noted, the reduction factor for condom use appears to be about 0.2, which is not particularly low. The very low incidence of HIV in heterosexuals with numerous sex partners would appear to the very low probability that the partner is HIV positive in the first place. This is not to say that condoms do not make a useful degree of risk reduction but they are not as effective as people perceive them to be. We get away with multiple partner sex not so much due to condoms but to the low prevalence of HIV in heterosexuals in the USA in the first place. In parts of Africa, where HIV is widespread in heterosexuals, sex with or without condoms would be risky (though if you are going to do it, you are obviously better off with a condom).

The converse point is that if the prevalence of HIV in the pool of people with whom you are having sex is very low, then not using condoms will increase your risk by a factor of 5, but 5 times a very low risk is still a very low risk.

I hope you guys realize that some ladies have planted a seed with this thread and let you guys run with it. Look at the last 4 pages of post.............

Carl I understand where you are coming from and I agree with a lot of what you said but I am more in line with kittyloveratx. Knottyman...you know I think you are a sweetheart but I'm not following you. Would a guy really want to spend money on a session with me just to push my buttons? Well nevermind...nothing surprises me anymore! Like I said, I'm a safety girl so it really doesn't bother me to the point of getting out of the hobby or anything. Its just bothersome but it doesn't really do any good for me to keep bitching. Interesting outlooks though. One last thing...i think carl is right about bbfs being used as a weapon to mess with people. Most of it is rumor but I know that it is more rampant and not just from one review or ad. I'm just not afraid to talk about it.

according to your formulae you are taking a risk every 80 out of 100 times (a 0.2 risk reduction factor) How does that equate to being better off with a condom to reduce getting hiv/aids? or lets go up a magnitude, you are at odds of getting hiv/aids with a condom on 800 out of 1000 times, or even better yet, 8000, out of 10,000 times. doesn't take an actuarial to realize that if you are with someone with hiv/aids, with or without a condom you are doomed based on your formulae.. something does not compute here.

according to your formulae you are taking a risk every 80 out of 100 times (a 0.2 risk reduction factor) Originally Posted by kittyloveratx

No, I'm sorry if I was not clear. You are taking a risk 20 out of 100 times if you have sex with a condom with someone who is HIV positive. If you don't use a condom, then you would be taking a risk 100 out of 100 times (if your partners are HIV positive). My point was that it's not so much the condom that saves you but mostly the fact that all or most of your partners are HIV negative.

it boils down to this, accidents happen in the hobby. There are risks as stated. But to simply decide that you are going to play russian roulette with your cock or pussy to go bareback instead of putting a revolver to your temple with one shell in the gun, every time someone cums is like pulling the trigger. one day the shell will rotate up and you are dead. You can reduce the risks, put on a condom or put a plug in the end of the gun (yes, I know, the gun will go boom etc....its a freaking metaphor). Ok, better metaphor - stop playing russian roulette when you know better than to risk your life, the ladies life, your so's life, her so's life, or the 6 contacts down from your experience (or somewhere near 2000+ people who may step into your path). simple math and the laws of probability rule here. If not for std/hiv/aids prevention then unwanted pregnancies. Don't be selfish.

the ads are up in plain sight to read. . Originally Posted by BritneyBangs

Yes ma'am, they are. Here's one of the latest; and it's a doozy too!

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=75990

Reading that ad made me wonder about a lot of things.

Does she believe that pregnancy was the only reason to engage in protected intercourse? Now that she's pregnant, and pregnancy is no longer an issue, does she believe that there's nothing else to worry about?

Mainly though, it made me think of this: It's one thing to go BBFS when it's just you. It's an entirely different thing to subject an unborn child to the deal. What health risks is she subjecting her unborn baby to? If she happens to contract an STD during her pregnancy, are there any risks to the unborn baby? There has *got* to be some serious health risks to the baby in there somewhere, doesn't there??

I don't know. That just sounds awfully wreckless and seriously fucking irresponsible to me.







.

SofaKingFun, maybe I'm just dense, but I didn't read that ad to advertise BBFS. There's room there to interpret it as such, sure, but it doesn't seem to expressly advertise it. I think it would be unjust to the advertising woman to assume that it's the case.

... but I didn't read that ad to advertise BBFS. There's room there to interpret it as such, sure, but it doesn't seem to expressly advertise it. I think it would be unjust to the advertising woman to assume that it's the case. Originally Posted by Rand Al'Thor

This is what I've been thinking about the ads brought up as examples in this discussion. I believe the women in question are cleverly wording their ads to entice those with a certain level of gullibility.

The more I see these kinds of threads it comes across to me as women afraid of losing business to competition with clever marketing than really worrying about the safety of everyone else.

Take Sweet Heather's post a few weeks back. When it all came down to it in the end, it was just all about how something affected *her* despite all the posturing she did.

SofaKingFun, maybe I'm just dense, but I didn't read that ad to advertise BBFS. There's room there to interpret it as such, sure, but it doesn't seem to expressly advertise it. I think it would be unjust to the advertising woman to assume that it's the case. Originally Posted by Rand Al'Thor

Uhhh... well, maybe not then. Let's see.

Cum Explode all in my Pussy and give me that hot juice!
Or let me tast it in my mouth!-
100dollar special


I have a HOT SWEET PREGNANT PUSSY!!

PUSSY Throbbing for Excitement!

Hormones Racing!

Dreaming to Suck YOUR COCK! Waiting for my PUSSY to be Ramed and filled with your CUM!

I have a SWEET Shaved PUSSY with a perky 36D!

And sweet creme Bursting from my NIPPLES!
waiting to be sucked!


<text color changed to red for illustration purposes. No other changes made. SKF>

I dunno', perhaps you're correct. To me, and I'm just a casual observer here, If a gal is wanting her "pussy to be rammed and filled with your CUM", then I'mma' have to say she's offering a BBFS session. That's just me though. How else is a person going to fill up a pussy with their cum, what, are they going to snowball it?



.


.

I know what you're saying, and if I had to make the judgment call one way or the other, I would have to say that ad does lean heavily toward advertising it.

But if I were to give it due process, it's not enough to convict with.

"..pussy rammed.." let's take that out, since that can be done with or without cover. "..filled with your CUM.." would imply BBFS, but I have seen enough twisting and wordsmithing around here to know that (if the poster wanted to deny it) could mean filled with cum [in a condom].

Maybe I'm just naive about this.

Yeah, I know.

Yeah, I know.

Originally Posted by SofaKingFun

I guess I tend to give benefit of doubt too freely sometimes.