What the CDC has to say about HIV and BBBJ's:

[ANONONE]

Folks, I am still on hobby hiatus, and am not really posting on the board for a while, but I would like to ask the regular board membership to keep an eye on this thread.

This thread is about the facts of HIV and what the CDC has to say. Other DOCUMENTED and ANNOTATED studies are welcome; conjecture, anecdotal opinion, and paranoia are not welcomed.

There are plenty of threads gone rampant with mere opinion on the board with regards to to BBBJ issue. Let's try to keep this one a bit more rational and scientific. Opinions are welcome, but try to support them with facts and research and please, provide references or links.

Please hold the line and make sure you call folks on their sources. I appreciate the way npita, txbrandy, laurenitus and others have done the careful work to include their sources. Hold any new folks that join this discussion to that tradition please.

Thank you.

I will be back in a few weeks.

Have fun and be safe,

--Anon

[Guest030911]

[China Doll]

It's hard for people to react well to a thread like this. Many of the ladies who do not do BBBJ will feel insulted by the implication that they are ignorant for not performing BBBJ. I'm sure the implication was not intended, but I think it is clear that it was read that way. I personally am not offended, because as my cyber lover Laurentius puts it, we choose what goes into our mouths and when.

I also think that this kind of thread is futile. You can go online and find completely different data on sites that should be credible. HIV hasn't been around that long, and we just don't know enough about it yet. As a result, I predict that this thread is going nowhere. I'll stay as safe as I can in the meantime.

Sources:
Conjecture
Anecdotal opinion
Paranoia

[Laurentius]

The field of evolutionary epidemiology is on the cusp of invalidating a lot of what we think we know about disease. The doctors of today think the doctors of 1910 were primitive. And the doctors of 1910, while administering arsenic as a medicine, thought the doctors of 1810 were primitive. How will the doctors of 2110 view those of today?

In every era we make the mistake of seeing ourselves as somehow the apex of human evolution; not realizing that in some future we will be seen to have been mired in a dark age.

Arguments over statistics are interesting; but -- as my cyber lover notes -- they can clearly make women feel pressured to justify decisions that they shouldn't have to justify to anyone.

Individual choices are the sole domain of the persons who will bear responsibility for those choices.

And the content of those choices need not be entirely based on studies. They can be based not just on safety, but comfort and other worthwhile and very human parameters. The fact that something can't be put in a test tube and measured or sold on the stock exchange doesn't mean it is unimportant as a basis for decisions.

[charlestudor2005]

Every activity brings with it benefits, downsides, dangers, and risks.

If you choose to hobby, the activity has a lot associated with it. There is the chance of being caught by an SO, which could, essentially, ruin your life. There are also chances of catching disease. Reasonable minds can differ about this chance. We can only respect the right of each person to determine that with which they are comfortable.

The same goes for providers, but their chosen profession may raise the risk somewhat based on frequency of activity. Reasonable minds may differ about this, also. Again, we are all compelled to respect the right of each person to determine that with which they are comfortable.

Although this is a board where opinion is rampant (even though the thread starter has attempted to keep this thread limited to actual scientific studies), efforts to compel people to change their minds in this area should be roundly condemned.

We all deserve the right to determine our BCD boundaries and not be pressed to change them. It is not a matter of science, data, statistics, persuasion or education. It is merely a matter of being comfortable in our own skins and not being pressed to go outside our self-determined boundaries.

Just my .02.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Laurentius

My point, in case I am beating around the bush too much; is that I think your argument against CIM based upon your unwillingness to accept HIV risks is not well-reasoned. If health risks were the true operative factor; you would already have dropped a great many things off your menu that have far greater risks including kissing, covered sex, and touching.

Your overall point is sound and should be disagreeable to no one, but this part i believe is a bit of a logical fallacy. I say that on the assumption that "CIM" is, in part, code for BBBJ. What i mean is this. The unfortunate reality is that the limitation of risk needs to be kept within the boundaries of what's reasonable. In this business, not touching is not really reasonable. Refusing even covered sex is not really reasonable. At least not if one hopes to make a living in this business. And kissing, well, you could probably argue that one either way. So when compared to the difference between performing only CBJ or performing BBBJ, touching or not touching is a huge gulf. As is having protected sex vs having no sex. In other words, there's a substantial difference between offering BJ but requiring a condom, and not touching, to where it's not really fair to make a comparison of the two.

Not entirely articulate, so let me attempt it from a different angle.

CBJ Girls:
Crossing the street is risky.
Riding in a car is risky.
Let's lessen the risk of riding in a car by wearing a seat belt.

Laurentius:
Crossing the street is risky.
Riding in a car is risky.
If you're not going to stop crossing the street, then why bother wearing a seat belt?

Maybe not any better, but it's the best i got.

That all said, i do realize that in full context you're also arguing that (using my example) seatbelts do nothing to actually save lives. Nevertheless, with even just the infinitesimal possibility (if that's what it truly is) of HIV transmission hanging out there, taking what i believe is little more than a simple precaution is not something that anyone should begrudge.

I don't want it to sound like i have a major disagreement, because like i said, your overall point is entirely agreeable. Just had a quibble with that one aspect of your argument is all.

Originally Posted by China Doll

because as my cyber lover Laurentius puts it

AHEM COUGH OVER HERE COUGH COUGH

[China Doll]

Wow, guys. Laurentius, Charlesetudor, and Doove....I was incorrect in my prediction that this thread was going nowhere. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up less intelligent and informative as these last few posts have made it, but it has "gone somewhere" already nonetheless. I can't say that Anonone will be terribly pleased with us, however.

PS: Doove, you're my cyber lover too! There's plenty of me to go around despite my failing "Slut test" results.

[Mick2010]

Hello, First off I am new to this board. But wanted to ask if there has been a discussion just on general helth risks. I know the ladies take care of themselves but I just want to be sure to wake up the next morning without having to worry about anything. I dont want to ask them before the session, but I do know they take precautions. So does anybody have any insight in this matter? Thanks and if I am in the wrong thread please let me know where to read up.

Happy to be hear.

[rjdiner]

Originally Posted by ANONONE

Is a .04% variation even statistically relevant?

It is if you're one of the 4 in 10,000 that gets it.

[ANONONE]

Originally Posted by rjdiner

It is if you're one of the 4 in 10,000 that gets it.

As used in statistics, relevant does not mean important or meaningful, as it does in everyday speech.

It simply measures the likelihood that there is an identifiable pattern that will repeat under similar circumstances as opposed to merely chance.

That small variance points to the probability that we are looking at correlation, rather causation.

In science you are usually looking for at least 5% before you can even begin to attribute causation.