Very low risk of contracting HIV when not using condoms
Hello Bob, Many thanks for your second reply, and your categorical denial that cleanliness makes any difference, or that semen-covered fingers in close proximity to a vagina are not infectious. I'm not sure other medics would agree with you there (and condoms were around in 1945 too!). As to your venturing into my personal finances, well, again, that really isn't your business or area of expertise, so let's move back to the statistics you quoted in your first reply, namely that there's only a 5 in 10,000 chance of contracting HIV from an infected person when having vaginal sex. That's a lot of dirty, low risk sex! And it's certainly a lot safer that crossing the road or driving to work each day (when you might also kill others, Bob), and much more pleasurable. You see, Bob, every time you venture from medicine into behaviour, and make value judgments, you reveal that the hegamony you repesent is a moral, not a medical one, and you undermine what little good you may be doing. But good luck anyway!
You're most welcome.
Regarding your interpretation of the data I presented, it once again points up your fundamental misconception of the science of statistical risk. An estimated per-episode statistical risk for acquisition of HIV of 5 per 10,000 exposures to an infected source does not translate into "a lot of dirty, low risk sex." For your 3,000 episodes, for example, the risk of your first unconscionable act would be the same as that of your 3,000th. The degree of unconscionableness would increase with each deliberate act, but not your estimated HIV risk. That remains the same for each and every episode.
It's quite evident you are quite impervious to scientific fact, common sense and conscience. (Yes, Tony, at least your conscience should feel bad when all your other parts are feeling so good.) Consequently, I'll end this dialog and move on to other questioners who are looking for information rather than justification for their hedonistic selfish pleasures. As for my driving to work each day, when I drive I wear a seatbelt, obey speed limits and remain vigilantly conscious to avoid self-destruction or hurting others. On the other hand, you, Tony, are asleep at the wheel.
Very low risk of infection when not using condoms:Posted Jun 30, 2005
Dear Bob, Thanks for your reply to my posting, and thank you for starting out as a 'gentleman' even if your lapse into personal insults towards the end showed that you are not really one. I wasn't offering my experiences as valid medical research and I certainly wasn't asking for approval or disapproval of my 'behaviour', so your moralising was really quite irrelevant. My medical question, which you avoided, was on the importance of cleanliness after sex. You admit, using statistics, that the chances of contracting HIV from an infected person are infinitesimal, so my point about cleanliness is even more apposite. During the Second World War, British military doctors gave out advice to servicemen that they should always wash thoroughly in warm soapy water and urinate profusley immediately after sex in order to reduce the chances of contracting STDs. Given that it is known that the HIV virus is extremely unstable and does not survive hot soapy water, I was simply asking you to confirm or deny that the chances of contracting HIV are also substancially reduced if washing and urinating are practised as a routine after sex, and that this might even been more beneficial than condom use, given that while removing the condom, sticky fingers can spread infection anyway.
So please Bob, climb down off your high moral soap box (my sex life is none of your business!), and give us the medical facts. Leave the moralising to those more qualified (if there are any!).
Tony (HIV negative)
Response from Dr. Frascino
I'll try to be clearer.
You are asking if "cleanliness after sex might even be more beneficial than condom use . . . ." the answer is a resounding no.
Regarding the British military doctor's advice during the Second World War, here is a newsflash for you: it's 2005, Tony, not 1945!!!!! Has it ever occurred to you that physicians today might have more to offer their patients than during the Third Reich?
Next, what makes you think sticky fingers while removing a latex condom after sex can spread infection?
Tony, gentleman to "gentleman", you are correct your sex life may be none of my business, but that doesn't make your actions any less unconscionable. Let me do the math: unprotected sex (because using a condom is a "no-no," due to loss of sensation and pleasure) with 3,000 prostitutes in 30 countries over 20 years, and you've just had your first HIV test. Yep, no matter how you spin it, that still adds up to unconscionable behavior.
Tony, I'm delighted your hooker sex is so clean, neat and tidy, but that does not protect you or them from HIV infection. Those are the medical facts, plain and simple. Whether you choose to believe them or not is totally up to you. I will remind you that once again I agree statistically and scientifically with the statement you made in your original post (reposted below): "of course I realize that my own case proves nothing . . . ." It's nice we concur on that point.
Last, Tony, regarding "90% of working girls will do it (have unprotected sex) for the right money . . . ," how much is the right money? Perhaps $100. If so, 3,000 episodes times $100 is $300,000. No, I won't moralize, nor do I need to. You're actions speak volumes on their own.
Very low risk of infection when not using condoms Posted: Jun 27, 2005
I have long believed that the HIV threat to hetero-sexual, non drug-using men is hyped-up by a moral-crusading media. Consequently, I have put myself at risk to test my theory. Over the last 20 years, I have had unprotected sex with over 3000 working prostitutes (no exageration, I promise), mainly in the UK, where I live, but also in HIV 'hotspots' like Thailand (been there 20 times) Cambodia, Brazil, Eastern Europe, and so on (30 different countries). 90% of working girls will do it for the right money, believe me. The only precaution I always take is that I wash throughly with hot soapy water immediately after sex, and always urinate (to clear the tube) while doing so. Recently I offered myself for an HIV test for the first time (plus several other tests as well). The results came through today: negative on all counts. Of course I realise that my own case proves nothing, and many will regard me as foolhardy, but surely I am making a point: that cleanliness is more important than condom use (especially when they split). What all these do-gooding health advisers don't appreciate is that when men reach middle age (I am 58) using a condom is 'no-no' because of loss of sensation and, hence, pleasure. So why not shift the emphasis from condom use, which many ignore anyway, to thorough washing and urination immedately after sex. It works for me. I'd be very interested to hear from others, especially from medics.
Dr. Bob's Response:
You "believed" that the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission is hyped up, so you put yourself at risk by having unprotected sex with 3,000 working prostitutes in 30 HIV-hotspot countries?!?!? It's always so heartwarming to see altruistic folks willing to sacrifice themselves for science in such an unselfish way. "Foolhardy?" yes, perhaps some will regard you as such. I have a few other words in mind, but being a gentleman, I'll keep them to myself for now. The estimated risk for acquiring HIV per episode of insertive penile-vaginal sex is 5 per 10,000 exposures to a partner confirmed to be HIV positive. Consequently, I absolutely agree your adventures in foolhardiness "prove nothing" scientifically or statisically.
Although it does most likely confirm your permanent spot in:
"Ripley's Believe it or Not"
"Sex Secrets of the Rich and Idiotic"
"Sexual Russian Roulette for Dummies"
Tony, "beliefs" belong in church on Sunday, not between the sheets on a Saturday night as you bang cock in Bangkok! What the health advisers "don't appreciate" isn't really the problem here. Tony, your behavior is not a noble scientific quest for knowledge and truth, but rather an unconscionable act of a hedonistic 58-year-old pleasure seeker with his head in the sand. If you had contracted HIV at the time of your first unprotected encounter and have not "offered" yourself for testing until "recently," you would have placed 2,999 others at risk. Luckily, most prostitutes are much more aware of the actual risk associated with unprotected sex and would not agree to your reckless and unreasonable pursuits of pleasure. Shame on you, Tony. Oh and by the way, if you happen to decide parachutes are overrated when it comes to skydiving, please don't take anyone with you as you test your hypothesis and jump from the plane "protected" only by your beliefs.