CONDOMNATION BBFS

[78704]

Originally Posted by Carl

Your questions: "...what is to prevent the 0.1% of strains spreading, and spreading fairly rapidly, to eventually cause 99.9% of AIDS cases? And since it only took 25+ years to develop the first vaccine, how long will it take to develop one against this vaccine-resistant set of strains? Would it even be possible?"

Paragraph 2: HIV antibodies themselves aren’t rare, and scientists regularly find ones that are effective against a few different strains. But until last year, the most powerful antibody found only protected against about 40% of strains. New techniques for rapidly identifying antibodies have changed this, and sparked an unprecedented number of breakthroughs: in the past year, about half a dozen broadly neutralizing antibodies have been identified. These new antibodies are extremely potent (they neutralize the virus at low blood concentrations) and protect against many more strains of HIV. The research was published as two separate papers in Science (found here and here).

[Guest091710-2]

Originally Posted by SecretE

I'm really surprised no one has brought up full-term pregnancy and birth as their main reason to shy away from BBFS (it's certainly mine). Everyone doesn't believe in abortion, or birth control (or they inadvertently nullify the BC method by taking some other medication). It would be quite uncomfortable to explain to that child how he/she came to be in the world, unless there were some lies/withholding of the truth involved, never mind having to be connected to that provider/client for the next 18 years.

I'm surprised it hasn't seriously (I hear ya' Derek) been discussed as well. Perhaps because it's easier to argue, cast doubt, etc. on what is said about diseases.

Now, I have no doubt that a provider and client could shower a child with love and ensure all the other needs are met just as well as any other parents. If that's done, how the child came to be might not matter much to the child. And, being connected to that provider/client might be the best thing the child has going for it. However, one has to wonder would both provider and client have that level of commitment and capability. If not, then childbirth has to be a primary concern.

Disease-free or not, the risk of a child comes along with BBFS (assuming both provider and client have fully-functional, baby-making equipment).

[chuckeweiss]

1) Cumming in a woman, creampies, bbfs are hot major turn ons for me. I like the fantasy. Anyone who says cfs feels anywhere close to good as bbfs is being intentionally obtuse. Asking questions about why a man would want to engage in this activity is simplistic and a silly question. Asking why a man would engage in this activity despite obvious perceived risks make slightly more sense. Although really the answer seems obvious.

2) Engaging in unprotected sex with people at high risk is very stupid or self-destructive (or likely both)

3) Women advertising bbfs are asking for stupid and self-destructive clientele (self selection bias - far more likely to have an std because they engage in higher risk activities), and seem more likely to have an std. Although it seems hot (see #1 above), the woman immediately goes on my do not see list.

4) Debating the risk factors related to HIV transmission (or other stds) on this board is futile. Linking a study is not difficult to do, if you have actual information it is much appreciated. I have been impressed with some of the information posted on this board. For instance, I appreciate vikki lynn's post of a study on gel, but in reviewing how the study was conducted it seemed like a weak study. 60 as opposed to 38 infections out of 889 women with no information about who was having sex with who. So not holding my breath on that one. However, if she had posted and said a gel has been discovered that cuts the chances in half of getting hiv she would seem to be correct (based on the misleading article)

5) Critiquing a response based on grammar/spelling is ridiculous. Some of the wisest people I know speak poor english many of the dumbest people I know speak flawless english.

6) Calling an post/argument moral pluralism makes no sense and is in no way a positive contribution.


and i will now climb down off my high horse

[ANONONE]

Originally Posted by chuckeweiss

. . .and i will now climb down off my high horse

Your horse is not high at all, it is laying on the ground.

[Carl]

Originally Posted by 78704

Paragraph 2: HIV antibodies themselves aren’t rare, and scientists regularly find ones that are effective against a few different strains. But until last year, the most powerful antibody found only protected against about 40% of strains. New techniques for rapidly identifying antibodies have changed this, and sparked an unprecedented number of breakthroughs: in the past year, about half a dozen broadly neutralizing antibodies have been identified. These new antibodies are extremely potent (they neutralize the virus at low blood concentrations) and protect against many more strains of HIV. The research was published as two separate papers in Science (found here and here).

Yes, and even those antibodies, while broadly effective, neutralize 91% of HIV strains. Therefore, 9% of strains would not be neutralized and could easily become the basis of new basis of HIV infections fairly rapidly.

Paragraph 7 speaks more to vaccine development. Vaccines aren't made by injecting someone else's antibodies into you. Your body may actually make antibodies to foreign antibodies injected into you, if your immune system identifies them as "non-self." Vaccines induce the production of antibodies in the vaccinated person by simulating some feature (an antigen, usually a protein), found on the surface on an infectious organism (bacteria, virus) in a way that activates the vaccinated person's immune system to produce antibodies which will bind to that surface antigen and interfere with the organism's ability to infect as well as flag the infectious organism for destruction by white blood cells.

The problem with prior attempts at an HIV vaccine is that they have focused on a surface antigen complex called gp120 which is hidden in a depression/pocket on the surface of the virus. When the HIV particle infects a T4 helper cell the gp120 complex "pops up" and participates in attaching to the T4 cell and allows for the virus to inject it's RNA into the cell, infecting it. While antibodies for gp120 are easy to find, the virus easily mutates defenses, typically "learning" to hide the gp120 complex from the immune system's antibodies with smaller glycoproteins (basically small sugar coated protein fingers) which obscure the pocket/depression that the gp120 complex resides in denying access to the antibodies but do not prevent gp120 from "popping up" when it's time to infect.

The promise of these newly isolated antibodies is that they seem to recognize other previously unrecognized, unidentified, unstudied protein complexes/antigens on the viral surface that do not change or mutate nor are they hidden in a pocket or depression, though it doesn't look like they necessarily participate in binding to and infecting the T cells. So, they represent a non-shifting target on the virus. But like I said, the trick is to trick the immune system into recognizing these antigens.

What these new antibodies provide hope for is the possibility (still not an easy slam-dunk) to reverse-engineer the shape of whatever these antigen structures look like and develop a non-infectious soup of these novel, previously unidentified, antigens in isolation that can be injected and hopefully result in getting the vaccinated individual to stimulate production of their own broad-strain effective antibodies. But one has to question why other infected people besides these exceptional individuals don't already produce their own antibodies to these unchanging structures since they're supposed to be already present on the HIV strains they're infected with. There's some degree of finger-crossing and good wishes involved in actually expecting or predicting that a vaccine based on supranormal quantities of these stable antigens will reliably stimulate the production of similarly broadly-effective antibodies in the general population. If the genes coding for these antibodies simply aren't present in most individuals in the population, then it may be required to administer widespread gene therapy to insert the genes into the population to make such a vaccine even viable in the first place. People freak out over genetically engineered tomatoes so I'd be interested in seeing how asking people to allow themselves to be basically genetically engineered to avoid HIV infection goes over when they can try condoms and being monogamous instead. The irony would be that it would require basically artificially infecting the B cells (which produce antibodies) with the new genes and hoping the gene transfection would remain stable. In cell culture gene transfection studies, the inserted gene can sometimes "fall out" and no longer be expressed. But this is sort of getting off the subject since researchers haven't even demonstrated that they can successfully reverse engineer the shape of these stable target antigens from shape of the antigen binding sites on these broadly effective antibodies.

The only other alternative is to use weakened HIV to try and develop a vaccine but that would be tantamount to suicide for the subjects and unethical. It's also not possible to use dead virus to raise a vaccine. That's been tried. Dead or inactivated HIV has been found to lose antigenicity (they lose the ability to stimulate antibody production to live HIV) presumably because they degrade rapidly and the surface antigens lose their resemblance to the "live" forms.

Still, even if a vaccine is developed from these novel antibodies and 9% of HIV strains aren't recognized, you still will allow for those 9% of HIV strains to go merrily along unimpeded and produce new infections which will not only spread but will also be vaccine-resistant and that much harder to develop a new vaccine against.

[rekcaSxT]

Originally Posted by derek303

"Hello Derek, remember me? We had sex on July 23rd and it's now April 23rd 2011. I have a wonderful child and would like you to test as the father. I was so impressed with your looks and your new Lexis that I thought you'd be a great fit."

HA!

I am glad I had that vasectomy...

[TaylorMaiden29]

Originally Posted by Vyt

As for the actual topic of the thread:

* People enjoy risk.
* People enjoy pushing boundaries.
* People enjoy getting away with something they feel others don't.
* People don't consider long-term consequences, especially when suffering from dopamine/testosterone rushes.
* It's the responsibility of each person to determine how much risk they wish to open themselves up to, act accordingly, and respect the wishes of their partner as well.

If y'all want risk and getting away with something, come to my place, I'll put you in a diaper and a onesie (78704, come on boy, you know you need a spanking from Mommy) and we'll go for an "outing" THAT'S getting away with something while adding a little risk! Bwahahahahaha


Seriously,
because if the Death Risk can't motivate a provider to enforce covered fs, then hopefully pointing out what kind of attention a public outbreak of std's would come to bear. Johnny Law. Want to see Austin get a vice squad for the hookers? Offer bbfs and the media will be all over it like groupies on a rockstar. What will the media bring? Pissed citizens. What will pissed citizens bring? Johnny Fucking Law. Smarten up, our "natural" sisters. You are affecting all of us in a BAD way, please stop.

Also, advertising BB is just as bad as performing BB. In fact, worse, because now her clientelle is damn near limited to bb as I've heard claim that the safe players won't go near her! STD city, Austin it's time to double up those horses, get out the saran wrap and learn the art of NURU goop massages (Dagny, are you ready for the storm?)

[texman]

can't be too careful these days.

[Guest061511-2]

Yes...johnny law is another good reason! I haven't helped that cause with the start of this thread I am now realizing. Thanks to all of you that took the time to offer up statistics and literature. Maybe some people are just ignorant. Maybe they just don't care. Maybe they have nine lives? I really do hope people got something positive out of this thread. It was not my intention to try and call anyone out or attack anyone. I just feel strongly about all this. I am very surprised that more ladies didn't participate.

[Sensual Sophia]

Originally Posted by Whispers

I'll tell you a standard assumption in SOME circles..... When some guys see a lady reviewed multiple times (4 or more in my opinion) by the same guy and/or some lady that is recognized as certain guys ATFs.... those ladies make that BBFS list some may keep or have accesss too....

I quit repeating Providers more than 3 times a couple hundred ladies ago as familiarity breeds carelessness in my opinion....

Are you kidding me? Every provider has some regulars... sheesh. There are plenty of guys that like to see the same providers over and over because they're less into variety and more into a sure thing. Or there are even those hobbyists that ARE into variety but hobby so much that they still feel like regulars. I don't think a month goes by when I don't see Monk but I know he's seeing damn near half the other providers in town as well, so I'll still call him a regular. I don't see how having regulars = barebacking. By that assumption, any halfway decent provider in Austin is doing it because we ALL have regulars.

[Sensual Sophia]

Originally Posted by SofaKingFun

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.







.

OMG Eewww! ewww! eeeeewwwww!

ick ick ick. even if that girl wasn't advertising BBFS -- and I think she was -- that ad is fucking gross.

[Guest061511-2]

Originally Posted by Sensual Sophia

OMG Eewww! ewww! eeeeewwwww!

ick ick ick. even if that girl wasn't advertising BBFS -- and I think she was -- that ad is fucking gross.

I believe one guy called that ad smart marketing! I'm still shaking my head over that one.

[SofaKingFun]

Originally Posted by Sensual Sophia

OMG Eewww! ewww! eeeeewwwww!

ick ick ick. even if that girl wasn't advertising BBFS -- and I think she was -- that ad is fucking gross.

Sophia, be nice. She's my next reference.


~LOLZ~

I kid. I kid.

[txtraveler07]

Originally Posted by Sensual Sophia

OMG Eewww! ewww! eeeeewwwww!

ick ick ick. even if that girl wasn't advertising BBFS -- and I think she was -- that ad is fucking gross.

Say what you want about her style, but I bet her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

[sixxbach]

Originally Posted by txtraveler07

Say what you want about her style, but I bet her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

hahahha i was hoping to hear that song at the Men's club in SA yesterday when I was there for lunch....