-
You asked and we delivered! AMPReviews now provides the option to upgrade to VIP access via paid subscription as an alternative to writing your own reviews. VIP Access allows you to read all the hidden content within member-submitted reviews AND gives access to private VIP-only forums in each city. You can upgrade your account INSTANTLY by visiting the Account Upgrades page in your own user profile and using a valid credit card to purchase a subscription. You can get to this page by clicking the link in any review, by clicking the red "See the Details Now" banner on the home page, and by clicking the Purchase Private Details link in the navbar at the top of every page
Any prevention meds?
- Thread starter Tk111
- Start date
For one, i read a book written written by a doctor where in a particular chapter he says herpes is nothing more than a mineral(zinc) deficiency in the body. If that's so then everything else is simply a matter of taking care of yourself and not sex. Aside from that, there's 7+ billion people on the planet, which means they all were products of unprotected sex, there are hundreds of millions of babies being born in every hospital in every continent in the world, which means hundreds of millions of people are having unprotected sex every minute, military guys are having unprotected sex overseas and come back to have sex with their wives and girlfriends unprotected. 90 percent of the human race would all be sick and infected with everything by now. at what point does this become irrational?
Assuming that diseases can be sexually transmitted, the risk of having unprotected sex with non sex workers is not that lower than that of sex workers. Promiscuity is prevalent in the general population, since there are more people in the world that are non sex workers, your risk wouldn't be that different from sex workers. How many people around the world who spontaneously meet and have sex ask each other for their test results before continuing? Only if 90 percent of the world were monogamous their whole lives you can make the argument that your risk is less with sex workers, that clearly is not the case.
Sex workers are not people from another planet who dropped out of the sky, they're people like next door neighbors, when they get done with this and make enough money to stop, they're absorbed back into the general population and have boyfriends who they have sex with, unprotected. Alot of mongers/clients are husbands and boyfriends, you can't separate the two groups so either way you look at it the risk wouldn't be that different.
Sex workers are not people from another planet who dropped out of the sky, they're people like next door neighbors, when they get done with this and make enough money to stop, they're absorbed back into the general population and have boyfriends who they have sex with, unprotected. Alot of mongers/clients are husbands and boyfriends, you can't separate the two groups so either way you look at it the risk wouldn't be that different.
I disagree with you entirely. I don't have any stats on this, but I am going on simple math. There is a HUGE difference between the average promiscuous woman and a sex worker. I can see an average woman hooking up a few times a week when she is young. Even on the extreme end and she hooks up every day, that's 7 times a week, it doesn't compare to 7-8 times a day, 6 to 7 days out of the week for a sex worker. Even on a bad day, a sex worker at an AMP probably gets at least 3-4 customers. Just to clarify, I am referring to FS spots, not rub and tug places. On the low end, 4x6 is 24 exposures a week vs 7 exposures for an average chic. That is more than a 3:1 ratio of exposure for the AMP lady. On the extreme end, 7x7 is 49 exposures a week vs 7 exposures for an average chic. Now the ratio explodes to 7:1. And we all know that finding a chic that sees sleeping around as a hobby is a unicorn in itself, so I would put ratio of exposure at a much higher number such as 7:>1.
I agree they are regular people at the end of the day and when they leave the hobby they lead normal lives, but you cannot ignore that fact that they have a much higher chance of exposure to catching something than a woman that sleeps around on a weekly basis. Again, this is my math not specific stats so don't get your undies all bunched up.
I agree they are regular people at the end of the day and when they leave the hobby they lead normal lives, but you cannot ignore that fact that they have a much higher chance of exposure to catching something than a woman that sleeps around on a weekly basis. Again, this is my math not specific stats so don't get your undies all bunched up.
First of all, I was saying all of that if we assume diseases can be transmitted sexually in the first place, which I personally do not believe. But if we assume it's true, again the risks are not that different since everyone in the world is connected. Even if we take sex workers and mongers/clients out of the equation. In the general population let's say for example there's a woman who only had one sex partner her whole life, a boyfriend. He was in a relationship with him for five years. But this boyfriend during those five years he cheated on her(which is very common) multiple times and slept with 40 different women during those five years and she never knew about it. They eventually break up and go their separate ways. She meets a new guy, this guy eventually have sex with her. Despite her not having sex with as many men as a sex worker, the new guy is exposed to as many risks and diseases as a sex worker is because of the 40 women her ex boyfriend cheated on her with. The risks come up pretty even any way you look at it.
That is such an extreme way of thinking. It doesn't matter if its 1 or 100 people he or she slept with. The moment one of those people get a disease it changes the whole equation, and everything stops there. Again, the risk of exposure is the point I am making. Everyone throws out their garbage. Does that mean we all smell like trash? No! You know who actually smells like trash? Garbagemen! Why? Because they are exposed to it all day every day while they are at work. The same analogy goes for the FS AMP chicks. An average chic does not get exposed to the catching something like an AMP chic does. At the end of the day the chances are low, but the higher risk group is still the ladies banging out 7 guys a day all week long, not the average woman that you see sitting at a Starbucks.
Personally, I've never raw dogged a chick in my personal life until after we both got tested. I've always suited up for ONS and casual flings. My hat goes off to the mongers that go BBFS with these ladies. You guys are brave. Not heroic type of brave, just brave in taking the risk. I'll never want to trade places with any of you. lol
Personally, I've never raw dogged a chick in my personal life until after we both got tested. I've always suited up for ONS and casual flings. My hat goes off to the mongers that go BBFS with these ladies. You guys are brave. Not heroic type of brave, just brave in taking the risk. I'll never want to trade places with any of you. lol
First, if STIs are not sexually transmitted, then why are infection rates so much higher among gay men? Why are rates so much higher is sub Saharan Africa where condom use is low?
The only reason why infection rates are low among female sex workers here is that most don’t do BBFS.
If BBFS was the norm and not the exception, rates would be much higher and sex workers would be much riskier. Let’s say the tramp at the local dive bar sleeps with a different guy every weekend. She catches something and maybe gives it to 1 or 2 guys before figuring it out and getting treated. Or looking at it another way, she has 1 chance of getting infected a week. Or, maybe she is asymptomatic and infects someone every week. In that 2 weeks the AMP girl has seen 80 guys.
The only reason why infection rates are low among female sex workers here is that most don’t do BBFS.
If BBFS was the norm and not the exception, rates would be much higher and sex workers would be much riskier. Let’s say the tramp at the local dive bar sleeps with a different guy every weekend. She catches something and maybe gives it to 1 or 2 guys before figuring it out and getting treated. Or looking at it another way, she has 1 chance of getting infected a week. Or, maybe she is asymptomatic and infects someone every week. In that 2 weeks the AMP girl has seen 80 guys.
That's assuming statistics are always telling the truth. It was long ago found that in sub Saharan Africa, what they thought was AIDS, and Africans dying from it were simply Africans dying from complications of malnutrition and had nothing to do sex or a virus. There's also a video(which anyone can find)of a doctor during the 90s that took an AIDS patient and injected himself with his blood on national TV to prove that nothing would happen him, and .. nothing happened to him.
assuming that diseases can be transmitted sexually, what good would testing do? You would have to get tested like 10 minutes before sex, every time you have sex for it to be accurate. If you both agreed to get tested, and her results came back good, but she did the test three days ago, the time between those three days she could have had sex with someone else and caught something and give it to you the day she sleeps with you..so the good test that was negative three days ago wouldn't mean anything. At what point does it get ridiculous and irrational?