Should escorts or agencies disclose the escort's HIV status?

[Guest Sports]

I am wondering what everyone thinks about this issue. With the rise in HIV infection rates and with new strains of the virus resisting drugs, should escorts and escort agencies disclose in their advertising the HIV status of an escort?

[Michael]

This topic seems to come up every couple of months ...

 

For essentially all practical purposes it is never possible to know

definitively that somebody is *not* HIV+, so the only safe assumption

when having sex with *anyone* (not just escorts) is to assume that the

other person either *is*, or at least *might* be, HIV+ and act accordingly.

 

...where "act accordingly" means using informed judgement about what kinds

of sex you want to have and what risks you are prepared to accept.

 

All of that being the case, the HIV status of an escort isn't something

I feel that I need to know.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

;-)

[ad rian]

Well, this I guess dovetails with the thread on legalization. I think the advantage of legalization is that the agencies are regulated and the boys are tested regularly. I recently reported a suspicion of mine to Campus, and the owner said he would look into it, but the guy's pictures are still up. I must say on this score I have more faith in the agencies in Amsterdam.

[Guest pshaw]

Up to the escort.

If you want to know his status, ask him. If he says that he is negative, it's up to you to decide if he really is.

I don't bother to ask. I just assume that he might be.

[Guest DCeBOY]

hmmm.

 

maybe not in their advertizing, but i certainly think it should be disclosed if asked.

[Michael]

> I think the advantage of legalization is that the

> agencies are regulated and the boys are tested regularly.

 

That kind of testing just gives a false sense of security

to the clients.

 

The fact that someone tested negative 2 weeks ago doesn't

mean that they are negative today.

 

While you *could* argue that a testing program in which people

were tested regularly *could* limit the amount of time during

which they might infect others while being unaware of their

status, and you *could* argue that there was some statistical

public health benefit if this in some way reduced the overall

rate of infection, that doesn't help the individual who, lulled

into a false sense of security, has unsafe sex with someone who

was recently infected.

[ad rian]

>While you *could* argue that a testing program in which

>people

>were tested regularly *could* limit the amount of time

>during

>which they might infect others while being unaware of their

>status, and you *could* argue that there was some

>statistical

>public health benefit if this in some way reduced the

>overall

>rate of infection, that doesn't help the individual who,

>lulled

>into a false sense of security, has unsafe sex with someone

>who

>was recently infected.

 

Why would you assume that regular testing would lull anyone into a false sense of security? That was not my experience in Amsterdam as a client or observation of the behaviour of the escorts. Are Americans more inherently stupid or passionate? Is that your argument. While not perfect, I sure like knowing that I have at least a 2 week window of risk with an escort as opposed to a lifetime window of risk. I really can't see the downside.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

Last time I checked it was illegal for an employer to require HIV status for employment

[Michael]

> Why would you assume that regular testing would lull anyone

> into a false sense of security? That was not my experience

> in Amsterdam as a client or observation of the behaviour of

> the escorts. Are Americans more inherently stupid or

> passionate? Is that your argument. While not perfect, I

> sure like knowing that I have at least a 2 week window of

> risk with an escort as opposed to a lifetime window of risk.

> I really can't see the downside.

 

Actually I think that regular testing is a *good* thing, but the person who benefits most from it is the escort who is thus better informed about the state of their own health. (Whether this testing should be mandatory is, of course, quite another matter).

 

If the testing *doesn't* give you a greater (and, in my opinion, false) sense of security - why do you care?

You, yourself, say "I sure like knowing that I have at least a 2 week window of risk ...".

I assume that you "like knowing" because it gives you a greater sense of security.

 

OK - if you still practice safe® sex and it just makes you *feel* better to know that someone tested negative recently that's fine.

I don't believe that there is necessarily a "downside", I just don't think that there is an "upside" either.

 

By the way, I'm not sure what made you think that I was an American (I'm not) or that I was only talking about Americans (I wasn't).

 

As it happens I know Amsterdam well and am very familiar with how things work there - I have two very good friends who used to work in one of the brothels and I also know the owner of one of those bars quite well.

The truth is that, while the boys do get tested from time to time, it isn't nearly as frequent or rigorous as you were probably led to believe.

[+ Unicorn]

>Last time I checked it was illegal for an employer to

>require HIV status for employment

 

Not in bordellos, it isn't.

[+ Unicorn]

>That kind of testing just gives a false sense of security

>to the clients.

>

 

Well, it takes a lot of bad luck or bad judgment to seroconvert these days. I think that the advantage of regular testing is that it'll weed out those barebacking jerks. Being seronegative doesn't assure non-infection (in fact, a guy is especially contagious during the window of acute infection). Nevertheless, I think those who are infected and know or should know have a duty to let their clients be a little more on their guard.

[Jeff]

RE: hmmm.

 

I would respect anyone who disclosed their HIV status if positive. Sure, negative doesn't mean negative for sure, but if someone knows they're positive, I think they do have a moral duty to let clients (or any partner) know: They are putting their clients at risk (even with safe sex) and the clients (or partner) should know.

 

THat being said, the reality is that without regulation, it's the client who's taking the chance and ultimately is responsible for himself, given the escort may not be honest or may not truly know.

[+ deej]

RE: hmmm.

 

>THat being said, the reality is that without regulation,

>it's the client who's taking the chance and ultimately is

>responsible for himself, given the escort may not be honest

>or may not truly know.

 

Ummmm ... why is the client the only one taking a risk?

 

The client may not be honest or may not truly know as well.

 

And how will ANY of this change with regulation?

[Jeff]

RE: hmmm.

 

True, and it would be nice if all (escort + client) were honest, etc. I think both have a moral obligation: If I had an STD or HIV, I would disclose it to ANY partner as my moral obligation.

 

But the escort is the one being paid... offering services to the customer... and so the duty of obligation is even more on the escort than on the client. Pretty standard business. Paying an escort only to get an STD or HIV is like buying an automobile that has a part needing recall or else you may suffer bad consequences; only difference is, there's no recall in this game. But the burden of responsibility is on the product/service being sold.

 

Regulation would be if it were legal, but through organized agencies that track these things. Sure, an agency can be dishonest/wrong, but there would have to be consequences for that type of thing. It may never be 100% - but it would be better than nothing.

 

 

Jeff

[ad rian]

>Actually I think that regular testing is a *good* thing, but

>the person who benefits most from it is the escort who is

>thus better informed about the state of their own health.

>(Whether this testing should be mandatory is, of course,

>quite another matter).

 

I think both parties benefit. Wh benefits "more" probably depends on individual circumstances. I don't see the downside to mandatory testing if escorting has been legalized.

>

>If the testing *doesn't* give you a greater (and, in my

>opinion, false) sense of security - why do you care?

>You, yourself, say "I sure like knowing that I have at least

>a 2 week window of risk ...".

>I assume that you "like knowing" because it gives you a

>greater sense of security.

 

I just said 2 weeks because it was your example. My point is that what ever the interval of teting you still have a narrower risk window than without it.

>

>OK - if you still practice safe® sex and it just makes you

>*feel* better to know that someone tested negative recently

>that's fine.

>I don't believe that there is necessarily a "downside", I

>just don't think that there is an "upside" either.

 

I think it is more than just a "feeling", it is a question of the risk window which admittedly will never be 100% but the closer we get to that the better.

>

>By the way, I'm not sure what made you think that I was an

>American (I'm not) or that I was only talking about

>Americans (I wasn't).

 

Sorry, assumption on my part.

>

>As it happens I know Amsterdam well and am very familiar

>with how things work there - I have two very good friends

>who used to work in one of the brothels and I also know the

>owner of one of those bars quite well.

>The truth is that, while the boys do get tested from time to

>time, it isn't nearly as frequent or rigorous as you were

>probably led to believe.

 

I never said that the testing was every 2 weeks. My experience was admittedly with People and yes I think there it was indeed once a month and the guys were ok about that. Frankly, one of the problems with cyberscorting and the rise of "independants" in Amsterdam (to cross on to another thread) is that the Dutch health regime can't assure testing outside f the agencies and brothels.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

RE: hmmm.

 

funny you mention the car thing, try telling the finance officer that he doesnt need to do a check on you, he is the one being paid and should just be happy with that, thats the risk they take for selling cars

[Guest DCeBOY]

coming soon...

 

ETHAN's review course on punctuation, supplemented by ETHAN's helpful hints to avoid run-ons.

[Jeff]

RE: hmmm.

 

Very good point about the finance officer; I didn't think of that as I have never used one. But clearly it's their right to do a check on you to make sure you can pay. And to be honest if a brand-new escort wants payment upfront or part of it or at least to see it, I have no problems with that. It doesn't help the mood perhaps but I wouldn't blame the escort. There are too many who probably meet clients who do want to stiff them, etc., and that's not right for the escort. He has to make sure that the client's part of the agreement is firm.

[ad rian]

RE: hmmm.

 

Reading this thread makes me wonder whether, apart from what an escort or agency may disclose, it is possile to discern hints about an escort's HIV status. For instance, if an escort is exceptionally good looking and generous, but charges $50.00 to $100.00 less than the going rate, should a red flag go up? What other hints might there be? Also, why would anyone HIV+ want to be an escort? Are the reasons the same as for other escorts or is money necessary for the drugs, or a secret vengeful desire to infect someone else?

[Michael]

RE: hmmm.

 

> Reading this thread makes me wonder whether, apart from what

> an escort or agency may disclose, it is possile to discern

> hints about an escort's HIV status.

 

Unless the escort himself tells you something which you think might be indicative of his HIV status, or you search his belongings when he isn't looking (which I am sure is *not* what you were suggesting), then I think that the only hint that you are going to get is the following very generic, but quite useful one:

 

HINT: people who are sexually active *may* have sexually transmitted diseases and *may* be HIV+.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, given that piece of information what more do you need???

 

> For instance, if an escort is exceptionally good looking and

> generous, but charges $50.00 to $100.00 less than the going rate,

> should a red flag go up?

 

Anything that seems "to good to be true" usually is, but the escort's HIV status would be low on my list of potential explanations for the scenario you are describing.

 

> What other hints might there be?

 

You mean, other than the escort chatting on his cell phone about

his T-cell count and viral load?

 

> Also, why would anyone HIV+ want to be an escort?

 

You might as well ask why anyone with blond hair would want to be an escort.

 

> Are the reasons the same as for other escorts or is money necessary

> for the drugs, or a secret vengeful desire to infect someone else?

 

While there are a variety of reasons why people do escort work, the desire to make money is pretty much always at the top of the list

- why would it be any different for someone who is HIV+.

 

I really think that you are over-analyzing this whole issue.

[buckguy]

This is one of several recurring issues that seem to be about clients insecurities or desires for power in the escort-client relationship.

And so we have expectations that escorts will be just like their best review with everyone, concerns about HIV-positivity, etc.

 

Unfirtunately, you takes your chances. I've had great times with highly tauted escorts and less than wonderful times with them. If an escort does say he tested HIV-, that doesn't mean he's HIV- when you see him. If you date someone, you run the same risk and it's unlikeky that someone will want to avoid sex for the duration of the window period just to have sex with somoen who has to be sure they're negative.

 

As others have said, take precautions. And if you need some ironclad guarantee that everything will be perfect, don't bother hiring at all.

[ad rian]

>If an escort does say he tested HIV-, that

>doesn't mean he's HIV- when you see him. If you date

>someone, you run the same risk

 

I don't disagree, but don't you see a distinction between an escort or client who knowingly is HIV+ and choooses not to disclose that fact, and an escort or client who may not know either because he is outside some risk window of testing, or simply has not been tested? It seems to me that the former conduct is more egregious than the latter. I think both parties have a right to expect honesty and truth as to actual knowledge of an HIV+ status, but of course both parties know that one can never be entirely positive about a negative status. The point is that the knowledge has a real implication for the degree of risk that either party might knowingly voluntarily consent to undertake.

[Jeff]

Well-stated.

 

Jeff

[+ deej]

>The point is that the knowledge has a real

>implication for the degree of risk that either party might

>knowingly voluntarily consent to undertake.

 

And this is EXACTLY why HIV and other STD's are spreading at alarming rates today. People (and you seem to be one of them) are measuring risks and figuring "what the fuck?" becuase they feel they are within some kind of window of safety.

 

THERE IS NO WINDOW OF SAFETY! IT ISN'T THERE! YOU'RE BUYING INTO A FAIRY TALE!