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

[ad rian]

>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!

 

I just finished watching Brazil beat England, but can't let this go. There seems to be that the subtle distinctoion is lost on DEEJ. Nobody is arguing that it is possible to have 100% safe sex. Everyone acknowledges that using escorts brings with it inherent risks, probably more than with "regular" sexual relations. The issue is whether one is more at risk or less or risk by having available knowledge of one's partners likely status based on what ever the most recent information exists in the posession of that partner. The point is that if I know a partner to be HIV+, and he knows that, and tells me, I would decline. Maybe you would not, but I would. Clearly, even assuming one strives to engage in "safe" sex, one is at less risk with that knowledge and acting upon it, than without that knowledge and therefore not being able to act on it. I simply don't understand why that subtlety eludes you.

[+ deej]

>I just finished watching Brazil beat England, but can't let

>this go. There seems to be that the subtle distinctoion is

>lost on DEEJ.

 

It isn't lost on me. It just does not exist.

[ad rian]

>It isn't lost on me. It just does not exist.

 

So to be clear you are saying it makes no difference to you whether you have sex with someone who you know concretely to be HIV+, and someone who practices safe sex and is tested regularly? Allowing for the fact that one can never be 100% certain of a partner's status, I don't see how you can equate the risks. In one case, there is a 100% risk, in the other there is or may be some quantum less than 100%. Personally, I think that margin of safety is important even though I won't become any less careful in the second scenario except in the sense that I would never participate in the first scenario. I think your indifference to these two scenarios encourages escorts who know themselves tpo be HIV+ to feel that they need not disclose the truth so a client can make an informed decision. In that sense, I think you are endorsing risky behaviour of the kind that has probably led to increased rates of infection. How on earth can anyone seriously argue for less rather than more information and disclosure?

[+ deej]

>So to be clear you are saying it makes no difference to you

>whether you have sex with someone who you know concretely to

>be HIV+, and someone who practices safe sex and is tested

>regularly?

 

Yep.

 

I'm going to assume the risk is 100% (because it is) in every encounter. Period. Any other assumption is delusional.

 

And, for what it's worth, the way you worded what I quoted above it seems you think that someone who is HIV+ is automatically having unsafe sex. That's a pretty narrow-minded view, even bigoted.

 

I have no problem being with an HIV+ partner so long as all precautions are taken. One of my closest friends was in a 3-year relationship with a man who is Poz and he's no worse for wear (relationship scars aside).

 

Trying to analyze and manage the odds and percentage of risk is a losing proposition. The risk is always 100%.

[ad rian]

>And, for what it's worth, the way you worded what I quoted

>above it seems you think that someone who is HIV+ is

>automatically having unsafe sex. That's a pretty

>narrow-minded view, even bigoted.

>

>I have no problem being with an HIV+ partner so long as all

>precautions are taken. One of my closest friends was in a

>3-year relationship with a man who is Poz and he's no worse

>for wear (relationship scars aside).

>

Ok, so we agree to disagree. I personally choose not to knowingly have sex with anyone who is Poz. If it is not bigoted for escorts to choose what race of clients they desire, I don't see how it is bigoted for a client to choose not to retain the services of a Poz escort. I willingly take the risks associated with engaging escorts, but I do practice safe sex with them, but I draw the line when it comes to engaging escorts who are POZ. I bet most clients think that is relevant information, and I think most logical people can see that all other things being equal having sex with someone who is is known to be HIV+, and someone who on the basis of recent tests believes them not to be negative do not present the same risks. It is simply a matter of mathematics, my friend,but that is not to say that someone else might choose to accept those higher risks notwithstanding the disclosure.

[Michael]

I think that all that this discussion really shows is that different people have different ways of assessing risk.

 

A (very) long time ago I realised that, if I was going to go on having sex at all, then I would almost inevitably, sooner or later, end up having sex with someone who was HIV+.

 

I had to decide whether or not I was willing to take that risk at all (the alternative being to not have sex with other people) and, if so, exactly what kinds of sexual activities were "worth the risk" that they entailed.

 

Once those things were decided, the issue of whether or not the other person was *actually* HIV+ became irrelevant to me, because I was always going to assume that they *might* be.

 

> I personally choose not to knowingly have sex with anyone who is Poz.

 

That's OK - you are in charge of your own life and you can certainly choose who you do and don't want to have sex with on any basis you like - I think that it's a personal choice that you are entitled to make and I wouldn't describe it as bigoted.

 

> I willingly take the risks associated with engaging escorts,

> but I do practice safe sex with them, but I draw the line when

> it comes to engaging escorts who are POZ. I bet most clients

> think that is relevant information, and I think most logical

> people can see that all other things being equal having sex

> with someone who is is known to be HIV+, and someone who on

> the basis of recent tests believes them not to be negative

> do not present the same risks.

 

Unfortunately, the fact that "most people" think or believe something doesn't make it correct.

 

The fundamental difference that we have here is that you think that the information that someone recently tested negative has some value and allows you to decide that the risk of having "safe sex" with that person is sufficiently low that it is acceptable to you.

 

My position is that the information that someone recently tested negative is worthless in the context of making this kind of decision, because, at best, it tells you what their HIV status *was*, not what it is now.

 

If your tolerance for risk is such that you do not wish to risk having even "safe sex" with someone who is known to be HIV+ (and that's a perfectly OK position for you to have) then, unfortunately, it means that you just aren't going to be having very much sex with other people.

 

> It is simply a matter of mathematics, my friend,but that is not to

> say that someone else might choose to accept those higher risks

> notwithstanding the disclosure.

 

More a matter of logic that mathematics (don't forget that statistics and probablity theory tell you nothing about the outcome of individual events), but the disagreement here isn't with your argument - it's with the validity of the data that you are relying on to make your decision.

[Guest sniper]

Hello, math major here. This is the sort of thing I figure out for a living.

 

The information given by a recent HIV test is hardly "worthless;" there is demonstrably lower risk engaging in sex with someonewho has had a recently negative test. This does NOT mean there is no risk.

 

To state the information is worthless is like saying you may as well save for retirement by investing solely in Beanie Babies as by investing in stocks and bo9nds, because all investments have risk.

 

Admttiedly, if you are going to have many, many different partners, the relevance of the question diminishes over time. But not everybody gets a different piece of tail every Saturday night of their adult lives. Some people(gasp!) have only a handful of partners.

And before you say it, I know it only takes one. But I would still be more willing to play Russion Roulette if there was a chance there were no bullets in the chamber than if I knew there was one bullet in it.

[Jeff]

Adrian is totally on the mark. So is the roulette analogy above. Just as it's "risky" to have sex with any escort who claims to be negative or does not say (yet may be positive), it's also "risky" to have PROTECTED sex with an escort who is positive (because there's no such thing as 100% protection). Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.

 

If an escort tells me he's positive, I'll respect him for his honesty but definitely not have sex with him. While everyone has the freedom of choice to be insane, certainly, if most sensible people choose not to have any type of sex with a positive escort, they will have NO risk of contracting HIV from that escort. And then in the bigger picture, the probability of contracting HIV from escorts in general will be less too.

 

Jeff

[+ deej]

>If an escort tells me he's positive, I'll respect him for

>his honesty but definitely not have sex with him.

 

That is your choice and I respect your right to make that choice. And of course, you've just broadcast to every Poz escort that he should keep his damn mouth shut about it if he wants to continue working.

 

You win ... err ... I guess.

 

You can go ahead and hire the guys who tell you they're HIV- and feel safe because that makes you comfy in your little delusional corner of the world.

 

The sad truth is that ANYONE you have sex with may be poz.

 

You may have already done it.

 

Assume every partner is poz because they just might be unless they're a priest. (And even that's in question these days.)

[Jeff]

Deej, you're really redundant. Each of us has been saying you can never know. But the question was whether escorts or agencies should disclose HIV status. Clearly, some of us think they should. Does that mean we're completely safe with the ones who aren't HIV+? No. But in answering this question, we believe they SHOULD tell us so that we can then make the choice not to be with them. We're still at risk with the others, clearly. But some of us would prefer not to be with those who are positive. Clearly, they can all take their business to you.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Testing

 

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

>>to the clients.

>>

>

>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.

 

I think Michael answered this question very well with his very first post so I will limit myself to a hopefully SHORT point about the discussion between Michael and Adrian. The window of security, be it one, two or ten weeks, is only providing a somewhat false sense of safety. Each of us must accept and take responsibility for our own health. We must judge the risks we will take with a positive person and must act as if every single person we have sex with, personally or professionally, irrespective of the kind of sex, is HIV positive. Otherwise, we are, unfortunately, only providing deception to ourselves.

 

Just as there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, there is no genuine window of some security. ALL sex, even with condoms, carries with it inherent risks. As an example, I have only had one experience in my personal or professional life where someone asked to use a condom while giving me oral sex and this was due to a possible herpes outbreak on his lips, which he kindly did not wish to pass along. There is medical research to suggest oral only is a mean of contagion and yet very few gay men engage in oral sex with condoms. In fact, there is a whole thread elsewhere complaining about an escort who insisted on wearing a condom when receiving oral sex.

 

Unicorn also makes an excellent point about the extent of contagion likely when a person has recently sero-converted.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Roulette

 

>But I would still be more willing to play Russion Roulette if

>there was a chance there were no bullets in the chamber than

>if I knew there was one bullet in it.

 

For the record, I believe in communication as stated elsewhere. This includes full disclosure of anythingthat would impact the escort - client relationship. I also believe in the legalization of sex work for the benefits that would accrue for both clients and escorts. In this thread, very little attention is paid to the risks run by the escorts in providing their service. Yes, I know. I understand. No one is forcing a gun to our heads and saying "fuck for money." Conversely, no one is holding a gun to a client's head and saying "hire for sex."

 

If legal, the relationship would be more professional. It would not be perfect. Enron is a perfectly legal company operating within a perfectly legal structure and yet illegal and illicit activity routinely and broadly took place. Enron is but one recent, albeit very public representation. However, a legal structure would benefit clients and escorts in that it would permit for health care and other benefits that would provide assistance to the escorts if sick, would ensure that they could take "workman's compensation" if they had to take a ten day course of antibiotics to treat a simple STD and would thus ensure that clients would not be exposed. I think allof you are very smart men and can discern the benefits that might accrue to both parties so I will not belabor the point.

 

Finally, it has also been scientifically proven that an HIV positive man with an undectable viral load is less likely to infect someone who is negative. Should we then not merely disclose HIV status but also current viral load? The only way to be sure you were playing Russian Roulette without any bullets in the chamber is to play with your own gun and for the gun to be empty. Anything less is still a risk, however low, but still a risk.

 

With HIV there is no such thing as NO risk. It is simply a low risk. At that point, then it does become a determination and risk assessment. Do not kid yourselves otherwise.

[ad rian]

RE: Testing

 

Each of us must

>accept and take responsibility for our own health. We must

>judge the risks we will take with a positive person and must

>act as if every single person we have sex with, personally

>or professionally, irrespective of the kind of sex, is HIV

>positive. Otherwise, we are, unfortunately, only providing

>deception to ourselves.

>

Agreed, but where you lose me, and apparently some others, is in the argument that knowledge of the HIV+ status is nnot a useful and relevant additional piece of information for clients and escorts alike to have in making voluntary and informed choices. I hate to call into question the motives of people who I don't know, but I must say I am skeptical of anyone who resists so assiduously providing that information. If you don't think it is relevant, ignore it when disclosed or don't request it, but why deny it to those who believe it to be at least somewhat relevant? Is yours a moral judgement, a fortified intellectual stance or a business decision?

[ad rian]

RE: Roulette

 

>For the record, I believe in communication as stated

>elsewhere. This includes full disclosure of anythingthat

>would impact the escort - client relationship. I also

>believe in the legalization of sex work for the benefits

>that would accrue for both clients and escorts.

 

It looks like our posts crossed earlier. I agree with your above clarification.

 

>With HIV there is no such thing as NO risk. It is simply a

>low risk. At that point, then it does become a

>determination and risk assessment. Do not kid yourselves

>otherwise.

 

I am not trying to beat a dead horse, but we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. Nobody is saying that there is NO risk, anbody is kidding themselves, the argument here is in favour of full disclosure and informed choices. I think you agreed to that above so it seems that at least you are on the same page with the proponents here.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

RE: hmmm.

 

do not get me started please

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE: Roulette

 

Call me stupid if you must, but if I were as worried about getting HIV as some of you guys, I wouldn't be having sex at all. I do the best I can to protect myself and any partner I have. I have no death wish, but I also don't want to live my life in fear. All of us have to be exceedingly careful, I agree; however, I do not rule out having sex with positive partners - my boyfriend is positive, and I'm not frightened of him at all.