Freaking Out Over Bareback

Risk is not absolute. It is a matter of degree.

Jumping out of an airplane with a parachute still entails a risk of death due to chute failure or improper technique. Jumping out of an airplane WITHOUT a parachute entails an even greater risk of death; though some people have in fact survived it.

But if you wear your chute, know how to use it, pack it yourself to make sure it is done properly and so forth; your risk of death declines. It never reaches zero, but it definitely declines.

The argument that because risk exists even sans BBFS that BBFS is no big deal is incorrect because it sees risk as an absolute on-off issue rather than a matter of degree.

There is a substantial difference in one's risk of death in engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors depending on whether or not a condom is used.

Frankly, in my opinion, failure to use a condom in a high promiscuity environment is INSANE.

Yes, it is a matter of free will and consent. Yes, people are going to do it.

But the fact that many people engage in a given behavior doesn't make it even remotely wise.

As my mother sagely noted, I wouldn't ask for permission to jump off a cliff just because my friends were doing it.

Would I have sex with someone I know has a STD. No. Originally Posted by jhende3

Yet you would have BBFS with someone whom you didn't know either way if they have one?

I hope you don't believe everything your partners tell you.

Yet you would have BBFS with someone whom you didn't know either way if they have one?

I hope you don't believe everything your partners tell you. Originally Posted by pornodave69

Good one but you missed out on somethings. A provider might also say she doesn't have a STD and you would and most other men daty. Just like I don't know neither do you.


And to the jumping out of the airplane without a parachute thing. I don't agree with that at all. Jumping without a parachute is certain death. If this hobby is that dangerous then were both fools for partaking in it. Why do some people refer to sex with a bb as like sex with the "grime reeper". Providers have realationships outside of this hobby all the time. They have husbands, boyfriends, kids and so on. You can sex with ten thousand people and still don't have a STD and you could just have sex with one and die a year later.

What some people fail to understand is that people are not advocating for bbfs but hoping that bbfs isn't the only unsafe thing done out there. Look at everything you do first. Is the risk your taking worth what your doing. We all make assumption about the other ones health but we shouldn't.

Most people are right people who have bbfs do take a chance. Most of them get away with it. And some people don't. It's sort of like cheating on your SO, you can do it numerous time and not get caught. It's exciting and fun but the one time you get caught it makes the whole thing never worth it

...failure to use a condom in a high promiscuity environment is INSANE... Originally Posted by Laurentius

But see, that's where I'm not sure I'd agree with you.

It's perhaps like not getting vaccinated in a high smallpox environment. That's crazy! But kids today don't even get that shot like I did -- no smallpox to catch.

It's not high promiscuity per se that's the problem. Not if high promiscuity doesn't translate into high STD rate. Often it does, but I'm really not sure if that's holds true in the hobby environment I circulated in.

Please, no one needs to start talking about relative risk...I understand and agree. But I know a number of providers, all with some time in sex-work, and none has ever had a sexually transmitted disease. I've never had one.

So one question that always comes up with me on this is: What's the delta if one engages in some selective bareback? How much does it actually increase one's risk?

Not advocating, just wondering.

But I know a number of providers, all with some time in sex-work, and none has ever had a sexually transmitted disease. Originally Posted by jfred

That's what you THINK. You do not KNOW. Do you think they'd actually tell you if the ever had one or currently had one? That's not really the kind of info people like to share.

So one question that always comes up with me on this is: What's the delta if one engages in some selective bareback? How much does it actually increase one's risk?

Not advocating, just wondering. Originally Posted by jfred

25% of the adult population has Herpes Simplex 2. 80% of those infected do not know they have it as they may be asymptomatic, yet they can still pass it along. So, you have a 1 in 4 chance of screwing someone who has it. You might get lucky and net get anything on one visit, but you might get it the next.

I guess the big question is why would someone take a greater risk of catching an STD when there are ways to lessen the risk? Do you drive without a seatbelt? You have a better chance of surviving an accident while wearing one.

Why risk putting the rest of your sexual life in jeopardy? Want to bring something home to your SO? Want a divorce and lose half your stuff? Want to risk being rejected by future partners when you tell them you're infected? Want to spend hundreds of dollars on daily medication?

It just doesn't make sense to me. But hey, knock yourself out. Just don't start crying to your friends when you get something. You asked for it.

But see, that's where I'm not sure I'd agree with you.
It's not high promiscuity per se that's the problem. Not if high promiscuity doesn't translate into high STD rate. Often it does, but I'm really not sure if that's holds true in the hobby environment I circulated in. Originally Posted by jfred

I recommend the following book: The New Germ Theory of Disease

It is by a microbiology professor, and he explains in great depth the evolutionary pressures on pathogens; and cites lots of interesting research. The bottom line is that the higher the promiscuity of the environment, the more virulent the diseases encountered will be; notwithstanding their prevalence.

In looking at condoms and relative risk WITH condom use, one need only to look at the rates in legal brothels such as those found in Nevada. Pre-employment requires physicals where the ladies are tested prior to being allowed to work. Condom use is a "must". How many employees have gotten an STD in that line of work? (From what I understand, the employee is required to stay there and not work outside of the facility for the duration of their stay). NOT speaking from a client POV simply because they may be dipping their wick elsewhere and therefore wouldn't be a "controlled" environment.

In my studies of The Chicken Ranch, I have failed to come across their practices as far as condom use and STD's. The Chicken Ranch was around long before the AIDS scare and from what I understand (at least in the early days) condoms were not required, however the washing of the penis was prior to activity. I have not read one way or another the STD rate among their employee's.

That's what you THINK... Originally Posted by pornodave69

No, I know that's the case.

25% of the adult population has Herpes Simplex 2... Originally Posted by pornodave69

Yeah! I read those statistics, too. Sometimes they scare the hell out of me. But ya know, I've been sexually promiscuous for 7 years or so now, and I've done some bareback sex -- occasionally inside the hobby and almost exclusively outside. And you know what? I get tested every 6 months (HSV2, too) and I haven't caught anything. And again, I know people who do the same thing and who, if they had gotten a STD, I would know about it. (You just have to trust me on that.) Frankly, dave, I'm not sure what to make of it, or how to understand it in terms of risk and probability. It's a conundrum.

I guess the big question is why would someone take a greater risk of catching an STD when there are ways to lessen the risk? Do you drive without a seatbelt? You have a better chance of surviving an accident while wearing one. Originally Posted by pornodave69

Dude, you present an excellent, cogent argument. But this is just what we've been talking about, isn't it? When you wear the "seatbelt" you're safer, but when you take the wheel you assume some risk.

I'm not questioning which is "safer" okay. The more protection, the safer. (That's true just by the nature of disease transmission.) But if it happened that I LOVED to drive but got no pleasure from it wearing a seatbelt? Should I give up what I love? (I'm not saying that's the case with me, just that it could be.)

If that were true, I'd be pretty interested in knowing as much as I could about how much more likely I am to get hurt without that seatbelt. Not just that's it's more dangerous, but how much more?

And that's what I'm wondering about: If I hobbied selectively, dated mostly married women in Real Life, and occasionally enjoyed sex sans-latex...how much real additional risk would I actually be taking? Does that make sense?

Why risk ...? Want to bring ...Want a divorce...Want to risk...Want to spend ...? Originally Posted by pornodave69

pornodave69, my friend, no one can rebut these arguments. But it seems to me that they make a better case for abstinence and monogamy than anything else. If one is tormented by such concerns, how could he bring himself to step into the world of sex-for-money, where his statistical risk of bearing those weighty consequences SOARS immediately? You tell me, pornodave.

It just doesn't make sense to me. But hey, knock yourself out. Just don't start crying to your friends when you get something. You asked for it. Originally Posted by pornodave69

You're a hard man, pornodave. If it ever happens that I contract an STD I most certainly WILL cry to my friends about it. And I'll expect them to cry with me. That's what friends are for.

I recommend the following book: The New Germ Theory of Disease... Originally Posted by Laurentius

So he's saying that in an "environment" (might have some questions about what that means) where, for instance, lots of people are fucking lots of other people who are probably fucking of some of the same people, AND there is a disease being transmitted among them, that disease is going to be meaner than in an "environment" (How big is an environment?) where less fucking is going on? Interesting. I may look at that. Thanks.

...condoms were not required, however the washing of the penis was prior to activity. I have not read one way or another the STD rate among their employee's. Originally Posted by TxBrandy

Yeah, they'd want the penises washed just to lessen the risk of urinary infections and vaginitis. Bad for business, and hurts, too!

Good studies may be hard to come by on the Chicken Ranch if there weren't disinterested medical types keeping records.

Every public health study I've seen will say that the "environment" comprising people who exchange money for sex are statistically at much higher risk of contracting STD's. But jeeze, that's a broad environment and it includes all those bareback-exclusively inner-city drug-whores and sleazy, alcoholic street-walkers. Don't get me wrong, I'm into science and Public Health, but when it comes to my own sexual decisions, I'm really only interested in my own little "environment." So that's what I'm wondering out loud about.

Wow jfred that was a interesting post. Very truthful. But on thing I could say is that your for real. And that whats life is all about. If someone is paying for sex you take a risk, I do you do and everyone else does too. Providers take a risk too. Some providers have told me the only reason they don't do cbj is because they hate the taste of rubber. Seems strange huh someone would take a chance of beening infected with something just because they hate the taste of rubber. Some guys hate the way a rubber feels so they rather not wear them. Some providers won't have sex like this some will. Does that make he or she wrong. No their taking that chance not anyone else. I personally don't like condoms but I wear them. I have been swinging for years and most of the time it's bareback. Never caught as much as a cold.

Most people infected with deadly diseases don't run around infecting others. Most guys in the hobby aren't screwing many women besides their wife. Well in my case it's my wife and her girlfriend. But in the past I have been offered bareback at least twice and turned it down from a provider not because it wasn't tempting but because I just didn't want to take the chance at the time.

You say... I say....blah, blah, blah...this stat, and that stat, and I think....blah blah blah....

If you are not comfortable with something then do not engage in it...be as safe as you can and still have fun....debating this is endless and will get us no where!

But ya know, I've been sexually promiscuous for 7 years or so now, and I've done some bareback sex -- occasionally inside the hobby and almost exclusively outside.Things that make you hmmmmmmm.You freely admit to being promiscuous and fucking prostitutes and bar trash pick-ups bareback, yet talked about "standards of behaviour" regarding providers. How interesting.

. And again, I know people who do the same thing and who, if they had gotten a STD, I would know about it. (You just have to trust me on that.)Uh, OK. Trusting strangers and casual aquaintences regarding their STD status seems like a GREAT idea.




You're a hard man, pornodave. If it ever happens that I contract an STD I most certainly WILL cry to my friends about it. And I'll expect them to cry with me. That's what friends are for.But I'm wondering if you would tell the prostitutes that you fuck bareback.


Yeah, they'd want the penises washed just to lessen the risk of urinary infections and vaginitis. Bad for business, and hurts, too!Oh, OK. So washing your penis "hurts". LOL And bad for business but good for providers health. Can't have that!

. Originally Posted by jfred

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sweet Heather, I'm sorry hun, but you are just not making any sense...your comments did not go along with what he said.

And it's just plain dumb for anyone here to keep debating this... IMHO

Don't u just hate when people answer threads that they don't want to talk about. Certain threads I precieve to make no sense I ignore them I don't even click on it. Some people might want to do that

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by Sweet Heather

You sure make it easy for a guy to rest his case, Heath.

Bear with me, everyone...I see this as a challenge!!

..You freely admit to being promiscuous and fucking prostitutes and bar trash pick-ups bareback, yet talked about "standards of behaviour" regarding providers. How interesting.

Well I don't know what you think I admitted, but it sure wasn't that!

I hobbied regularly for about 5 years and during that time I did some hobby bareback, yeah. Never with someone I hadn't already seen. Bailey O and I were pretty thick during that time and once we went without we never went back. But she wasn't doing that with anyone else.

Out of the hobby my experience is that soccer moms don't want covered sex. I'm talking sweet suburban types, usually married. I evaluate them as a low risk "environment." lol Bar trash, indeed!!

Uh, OK. Trusting strangers and casual aquaintences regarding their STD status seems like a GREAT idea.

People I know pretty well, hun, and have openness with.

But I'm wondering if you would tell the prostitutes that you fuck bareback.

Well, there aren't many of them. And if you mean, wold I inform someone if I had exposed them...uh huh, I would. Wouldn't you?

Oh, OK. So washing your penis "hurts". LOL And bad for business but good for providers health. Can't have that!

No sweetie, washing the penises is understandable (and good) because unwashed ones result in vaginal and urinary infections. That makes it hard for girls to work (bad for business) and feels crappy. (Hurts).

"Yeah, they'd want the penises washed just to lessen the risk of urinary infections and vaginitis. Bad for business, and hurts, too!"

Glad you clarified that statement. I thought you meant washing the penis was bad for business and it hurts. It's like "Dude, I don't know who washed your willy but it shouldn't hurt!"