What kind of asshole would do that? Disgusting! The right way to call that is RAPE.Equanimity said:
Has anyone had an experience with catching sometime from an escort?
- Thread starter Doggywoggy
- Start date
The Extreme Sport of BBFS
Yes I am not surprised. BBFS seems to be the all the rage these days. According to a straw poll conducted on another board, close to 50% of respondents admitted to taking part in BBFS with an escort. During the subsequent discussion it came out that not all of this activity was consensual. The girls complained of being strongly pressured to agree to it. Some of the leverage involved (a) the promise of extra money (b) threatened with negative reviews (c) subtle attempt remove the condom on the sly during intercourse (d) the use of physical force. Also during the subsequent discussion those pushing BBFS enthusiastically defended the practice stating that those who promote safe sex were alarmists, there was name calling by innuendo and, IMHO a great deal of rationalization both in that thread and in subsequent posts elsewhere on both boards. In another such discussion it was suggested that any discussion on this board on promoting safe sex among sex workers was a foolish idea as the powers of influence on this board were strictly of a negative kind (You can avoid calling an agency but to suggest they actually push the idea of safe sex is laughable – the girls are expendable.)
On the surface because,on the boards, we all talk and discuss our problems and bare our souls in this little tight knit community it might seem to these “gentlemen” that Montreal is a closed community relatively safe from outside influences. It is my belief that nothing could be further from the truth. Montreal is recognized as a cosmopolitan city and in a strong sense connected socially to all parts of the world. HIV or some other STD could come rolling in here from some third world country and, ``Bob`s your uncle``. The relatively low incidence of STD transmission in the past among those of the community in Montreal has been used to describe those of us who push for safe sex as running around yelling, “Oh sh_t! We`re gonna die!” or “Run for your lives! The sky is falling!” Personally I am not pushing for such extremes as saran wrap DATY but at least use a condom for intercourse and if you absolutely have to have the CIM then let her spit it out and gargle. At the very least cover the most risky practices. The new extreme sport of BBFS seems to be more popular than many of us realize if the patter on the boards is to be believed. I`d be interested to hear some other opinions.
Equanimity said:
Yes I am not surprised. BBFS seems to be the all the rage these days. According to a straw poll conducted on another board, close to 50% of respondents admitted to taking part in BBFS with an escort. During the subsequent discussion it came out that not all of this activity was consensual. The girls complained of being strongly pressured to agree to it. Some of the leverage involved (a) the promise of extra money (b) threatened with negative reviews (c) subtle attempt remove the condom on the sly during intercourse (d) the use of physical force. Also during the subsequent discussion those pushing BBFS enthusiastically defended the practice stating that those who promote safe sex were alarmists, there was name calling by innuendo and, IMHO a great deal of rationalization both in that thread and in subsequent posts elsewhere on both boards. In another such discussion it was suggested that any discussion on this board on promoting safe sex among sex workers was a foolish idea as the powers of influence on this board were strictly of a negative kind (You can avoid calling an agency but to suggest they actually push the idea of safe sex is laughable – the girls are expendable.)
On the surface because,on the boards, we all talk and discuss our problems and bare our souls in this little tight knit community it might seem to these “gentlemen” that Montreal is a closed community relatively safe from outside influences. It is my belief that nothing could be further from the truth. Montreal is recognized as a cosmopolitan city and in a strong sense connected socially to all parts of the world. HIV or some other STD could come rolling in here from some third world country and, ``Bob`s your uncle``. The relatively low incidence of STD transmission in the past among those of the community in Montreal has been used to describe those of us who push for safe sex as running around yelling, “Oh sh_t! We`re gonna die!” or “Run for your lives! The sky is falling!” Personally I am not pushing for such extremes as saran wrap DATY but at least use a condom for intercourse and if you absolutely have to have the CIM then let her spit it out and gargle. At the very least cover the most risky practices. The new extreme sport of BBFS seems to be more popular than many of us realize if the patter on the boards is to be believed. I`d be interested to hear some other opinions.
Last edited:
traveller_76 said:Does that work like the 5-second rule?
The acronym thread needs to be updated with SWDATY (Safe GFE = no kiss, covered BJ, and saran wrap DATY)
Kidding aside, very good post RG.
t76
yeah I guess I was being a bit graphic with the saran wrap and CIM. But please don't take my kiss away from me. Take the rest but leave me that. Very low risk BTW.
Anyway thank you for your thoughts.
Last edited:
Réponse d'une future infirmière...
Mesdemoiselles et messieurs,
Loin de moi l'idée de vouloir vous juger, étant donné que j'ai moi-même vécu les mêmes expériences que vous. Il faut savoir que tout échange de liquides corporels met notre santé à risque. Selon le geste, le risque est plus ou moins élevé. Un DFK peut transmettre l'herpès labial et tout ce qui est grippe, rhume, etc...Un BJ sans condom peut transmettre à l'un ou l'autre des partenaires des MTS courantes (condilômes ou VPH, chlamydia, gonorrée, herpès génital, siphylis) mais le VIH/SIDA se transmet par le sang. Ce sont en particulier les pénétrations vaginales et anales non protégées qui font courir le plus grand risque à cause des petites lésions du rectum qui passent souvent inaperçues. Le fait est là: mieux vaudrait avoir des rapports sexuels avec le même partenaire uniquement.
Pour avoir moi-même posé des gestes à risque, je peux vous dire qu'une visite chez le gynéco et le test ultime du VIH sont importants. N'oublions pas que les virus ne se développent pas chez certaines personnes qui en sont porteuses. Elles se croient donc "clean", mais en fait peuvent infecter d'autres individus.
L'hygiène personnelle d'une personne n'a rien à voir avec les maladies transmissibles sexuellement. On ne le répètera jamais assez...
Mesdemoiselles et messieurs,
Loin de moi l'idée de vouloir vous juger, étant donné que j'ai moi-même vécu les mêmes expériences que vous. Il faut savoir que tout échange de liquides corporels met notre santé à risque. Selon le geste, le risque est plus ou moins élevé. Un DFK peut transmettre l'herpès labial et tout ce qui est grippe, rhume, etc...Un BJ sans condom peut transmettre à l'un ou l'autre des partenaires des MTS courantes (condilômes ou VPH, chlamydia, gonorrée, herpès génital, siphylis) mais le VIH/SIDA se transmet par le sang. Ce sont en particulier les pénétrations vaginales et anales non protégées qui font courir le plus grand risque à cause des petites lésions du rectum qui passent souvent inaperçues. Le fait est là: mieux vaudrait avoir des rapports sexuels avec le même partenaire uniquement.
Pour avoir moi-même posé des gestes à risque, je peux vous dire qu'une visite chez le gynéco et le test ultime du VIH sont importants. N'oublions pas que les virus ne se développent pas chez certaines personnes qui en sont porteuses. Elles se croient donc "clean", mais en fait peuvent infecter d'autres individus.
L'hygiène personnelle d'une personne n'a rien à voir avec les maladies transmissibles sexuellement. On ne le répètera jamais assez...
Question
Bonjour,
J'ai eu plus de peur que de mal après ma première expérience avec une escorte. Vous pouvez lire l'un de mes thread dans ce forum. Je crois que j'avais attrapé le flu.
Maintenant, je suis encore tenté de ré-essayer pour la deuxième fois. Je voudrais être assez safe: CBJ, LFK, NO DATY, covered FS. Voilà. 100 safe ça n'existe pas c'est sûr.
A+
LordZ
Bonjour,
J'ai eu plus de peur que de mal après ma première expérience avec une escorte. Vous pouvez lire l'un de mes thread dans ce forum. Je crois que j'avais attrapé le flu.
Maintenant, je suis encore tenté de ré-essayer pour la deuxième fois. Je voudrais être assez safe: CBJ, LFK, NO DATY, covered FS. Voilà. 100 safe ça n'existe pas c'est sûr.
A+
LordZ
Why is everyone concerned about the flu? You can catch the flu from a co-worker. The burning while you pee is not so cool.
I had symptoms once that were somewhat consistent with Clamydia (no burning...just minor urethritis) , but I did every test known to man including the damn ass painful q-tip up the spout test and everything came back negative. Just a generic urinary tract infection.
Still, the scare was enough for me. Now, I only kiss the neck, and I'm always covered.
The guy with 9 chicks in different countries HAD to be kidding I hope...
I had symptoms once that were somewhat consistent with Clamydia (no burning...just minor urethritis) , but I did every test known to man including the damn ass painful q-tip up the spout test and everything came back negative. Just a generic urinary tract infection.
Still, the scare was enough for me. Now, I only kiss the neck, and I'm always covered.
The guy with 9 chicks in different countries HAD to be kidding I hope...
Fuckers
A friend on mine in college was forced into bbfs by a piece of shit. Mysteriously he had a bad ``fall`` and wasn`t able to walk quite right ever again. It`s hard to file a complaint when they raped someone. People like that deserve to die. People who use pressure tactics are also scum too. I don`t care that these women are having sex for money. It`s not a big deal to me. They are people just like the rest of us and deserve the same respect.
Tracy said:
A friend on mine in college was forced into bbfs by a piece of shit. Mysteriously he had a bad ``fall`` and wasn`t able to walk quite right ever again. It`s hard to file a complaint when they raped someone. People like that deserve to die. People who use pressure tactics are also scum too. I don`t care that these women are having sex for money. It`s not a big deal to me. They are people just like the rest of us and deserve the same respect.
i have been offered on more than one occassion BBFS by an escort. granted is was by girls who i had seen previously, but even on a second encounter it has been offered. never any request for additional funds. i would not partake however and have tossed a girl out right then and there. if she will offer it to me, she's probably offering it to others.
i know it has to be much more common than most of us believe.
please do not pm me asking names or details.
fly
i know it has to be much more common than most of us believe.
please do not pm me asking names or details.
fly
Bolding added... what a great name for the doctor
Independent.co.uk
Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits
A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa. But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts
By Jeremy Laurance
Sunday, 8 June 2008
A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.
In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.
Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.
Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia – China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas."
In 2006, the Global Fund for HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis, which provides 20 per cent of all funding for Aids, warned that Russia was on the cusp of a catastrophe. An estimated 1 per cent of the population was infected, mainly through injecting drug use, the same level of infection as in South Africa in 1991 where the prevalence of the infection has since risen to 25 per cent.
Dr De Cock said: "I think it is unlikely there will be extensive heterosexual spread in Russia. But clearly there will be some spread."
Aids still kills more adults than all wars and conflicts combined, and is vastly bigger than current efforts to address it. A joint WHO/UN Aids report published this month showed that nearly three million people are now receiving anti-retroviral drugs in the developing world, but this is less than a third of the estimated 9.7 million people who need them. In all there were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007, 2.5 million people became newly infected and 2.1 million died of Aids.
Aids organisations, including the WHO, UN Aids and the Global Fund, have come under attack for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, diverting funds from other health needs such as malaria, spending it on the wrong measures such as abstinence programmes rather than condoms, and failing to build up health systems.
Dr De Cock labelled these the "four malignant arguments" undermining support for the global campaign against Aids, which still faced formidable challenges, despite the receding threat of a generalised epidemic beyond Africa.
Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease, or who used the disease as a weapon to stigmatise high risk groups, he said.
"Aids still remains the leading infectious disease challenge in public health. It is an acute infection but a chronic disease. It is for the very, very long haul. People are backing off, saying it is taking care of itself. It is not."
Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners.
There were "elements of truth" in the criticism, Dr De Cock said. "You will not do much about Aids in London by spending the funds in schools. You need to go where transmission is occurring. It is true that countries have not always been good at that."
But he rejected an argument put in The New York Times that only $30m (£15m) had been spent on safe water projects, far less than on Aids, despite knowledge of the risks that contaminated water pose.
"It sounds a good argument. But where is the scandal? That less than a third of Aids patients are being treated – or that we have never resolved the safe water scandal?"
One of the danger areas for the Aids strategy was among men who had sex with men. He said: " We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased.
"In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high.
"It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously."
The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa – with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country – but nowhere else.
"It is the question we are asked most often – why is the situation so bad in sub-Saharan Africa? It is a combination of factors – more commercial sex workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population and concurrent sexual partnerships."
"Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection."
Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, and high rates of genital herpes, which causes ulcers on the genitals through which the virus can enter the body, also contributed to Africa's heterosexual epidemic.
But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.
"The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?"
Independent.co.uk
Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits
A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa. But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts
By Jeremy Laurance
Sunday, 8 June 2008
A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.
In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.
Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.
Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia – China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas."
In 2006, the Global Fund for HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis, which provides 20 per cent of all funding for Aids, warned that Russia was on the cusp of a catastrophe. An estimated 1 per cent of the population was infected, mainly through injecting drug use, the same level of infection as in South Africa in 1991 where the prevalence of the infection has since risen to 25 per cent.
Dr De Cock said: "I think it is unlikely there will be extensive heterosexual spread in Russia. But clearly there will be some spread."
Aids still kills more adults than all wars and conflicts combined, and is vastly bigger than current efforts to address it. A joint WHO/UN Aids report published this month showed that nearly three million people are now receiving anti-retroviral drugs in the developing world, but this is less than a third of the estimated 9.7 million people who need them. In all there were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007, 2.5 million people became newly infected and 2.1 million died of Aids.
Aids organisations, including the WHO, UN Aids and the Global Fund, have come under attack for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, diverting funds from other health needs such as malaria, spending it on the wrong measures such as abstinence programmes rather than condoms, and failing to build up health systems.
Dr De Cock labelled these the "four malignant arguments" undermining support for the global campaign against Aids, which still faced formidable challenges, despite the receding threat of a generalised epidemic beyond Africa.
Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease, or who used the disease as a weapon to stigmatise high risk groups, he said.
"Aids still remains the leading infectious disease challenge in public health. It is an acute infection but a chronic disease. It is for the very, very long haul. People are backing off, saying it is taking care of itself. It is not."
Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners.
There were "elements of truth" in the criticism, Dr De Cock said. "You will not do much about Aids in London by spending the funds in schools. You need to go where transmission is occurring. It is true that countries have not always been good at that."
But he rejected an argument put in The New York Times that only $30m (£15m) had been spent on safe water projects, far less than on Aids, despite knowledge of the risks that contaminated water pose.
"It sounds a good argument. But where is the scandal? That less than a third of Aids patients are being treated – or that we have never resolved the safe water scandal?"
One of the danger areas for the Aids strategy was among men who had sex with men. He said: " We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased.
"In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high.
"It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously."
The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa – with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country – but nowhere else.
"It is the question we are asked most often – why is the situation so bad in sub-Saharan Africa? It is a combination of factors – more commercial sex workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population and concurrent sexual partnerships."
"Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection."
Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, and high rates of genital herpes, which causes ulcers on the genitals through which the virus can enter the body, also contributed to Africa's heterosexual epidemic.
But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.
"The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?"
It's a full length documentary (2hrs) ...
but if you decide to watch it when you have some time.. it's really worth it and definitely interesting as well as disturbing.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3983706668483511310&hl=en
Deconstructing the myth of aids
Gary Null, Pd.D.
In 1984 we were told that HIV was the cause of AIDS.
In his provocative documentary film, “Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS,” Gary Null, Ph.D., challenges virtually every statement ever made by the American medical industrial complex on the virus - including those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute for Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
While presenting the findings of Nobel Prize-winning scientists and leading virologists, the film exposes the political maneuvering, conspiracies and cover-ups that have provided obstacles to the study of this human catastrophe from the start.
For example, there are experts who believe that AIDS is the result of multiple factors, including drug use, stress and nutritional deficiency, but that government agencies made a politically strategic decision to de-emphasize these hypotheses and thus discourage certain researchers and their funding.
Meanwhile, AZT, an infamously failed treatment for cancer, and now the primary FDA-approved approach to treating AIDS, is highly toxic and can produce the very symptoms of the illness it is prescribed to treat.
“Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS” goes beyond medicine and science to question the very foundation of our reliance on government bureaucracies where it concerns matters of life and death.
but if you decide to watch it when you have some time.. it's really worth it and definitely interesting as well as disturbing.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3983706668483511310&hl=en
Deconstructing the myth of aids
Gary Null, Pd.D.
In 1984 we were told that HIV was the cause of AIDS.
In his provocative documentary film, “Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS,” Gary Null, Ph.D., challenges virtually every statement ever made by the American medical industrial complex on the virus - including those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute for Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
While presenting the findings of Nobel Prize-winning scientists and leading virologists, the film exposes the political maneuvering, conspiracies and cover-ups that have provided obstacles to the study of this human catastrophe from the start.
For example, there are experts who believe that AIDS is the result of multiple factors, including drug use, stress and nutritional deficiency, but that government agencies made a politically strategic decision to de-emphasize these hypotheses and thus discourage certain researchers and their funding.
Meanwhile, AZT, an infamously failed treatment for cancer, and now the primary FDA-approved approach to treating AIDS, is highly toxic and can produce the very symptoms of the illness it is prescribed to treat.
“Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS” goes beyond medicine and science to question the very foundation of our reliance on government bureaucracies where it concerns matters of life and death.
Mlle Bijou said:
Sorry to be blunt, but it's complete bullshit. This is AIDS denialism, a nutty conspiracy theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism
AIDS is caused by HIV, an STD, no question. If any of those denialists believe otherwise, I challenge them to inject themselves with HIV and see what happens.
If they don't believe AZT and other drugs can treat AIDS at least partially, I challenge them to only treat themselves with herbs, or horse urine, or maybe even their own bullshit.
But did you watch it??
It's pretty wild.
I'm not sure how all of it can be denial, the documentary includes quite a few different points. How testing and results are analyzed is one of the parts I found really interesting. The fact that different countries have different guidelines when it comes to determining whether someone is indeed HIV positive, based on results from the same exact test (ie someone could test HIV positive here, but with the same exact results would be considered HIV negative in Australia), makes absolutely no sense! The part about exactly how screening and testing of HIV in Africa is done (no blood test, only a list of 'symptoms' that could very easily be unrelated), if true, is insane!
I honestly don't know what to think of all of it... but there is one thing for sure, and that is the fact that it IS big money. And how convenient that a failed cancer medication just happened to be just what was needed to 'treat' HIV positive people..
Honestly, if you didn't watch it... it's still really interesting even if you are skeptical.
But thank you very much for the link.. I was hoping someone else would watch it so I could get a different perspective or side to it, but this is even better and has all the info I wanted.. thanks.
It's pretty wild.
I'm not sure how all of it can be denial, the documentary includes quite a few different points. How testing and results are analyzed is one of the parts I found really interesting. The fact that different countries have different guidelines when it comes to determining whether someone is indeed HIV positive, based on results from the same exact test (ie someone could test HIV positive here, but with the same exact results would be considered HIV negative in Australia), makes absolutely no sense! The part about exactly how screening and testing of HIV in Africa is done (no blood test, only a list of 'symptoms' that could very easily be unrelated), if true, is insane!
I honestly don't know what to think of all of it... but there is one thing for sure, and that is the fact that it IS big money. And how convenient that a failed cancer medication just happened to be just what was needed to 'treat' HIV positive people..
Honestly, if you didn't watch it... it's still really interesting even if you are skeptical.
But thank you very much for the link.. I was hoping someone else would watch it so I could get a different perspective or side to it, but this is even better and has all the info I wanted.. thanks.
Last edited:
Mlle Bijou said:
No, because they are well known conspiracy nuts. All their claims have already been debunked before, like the 9/11 and other conspiracies. If I want to watch make believe, I prefer to watch Hollywood movies.
Mlle Bijou said:
There are tens of thousands of failed drugs. The fact that one, out of all the useless ones, would have an alternative use is not surprising at all. It happens occasionally (another example is thalidomide).
Lots more information: http://www.aidstruth.org/new/denialism/myths (#7 is about AZT)
"...circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners."
Lately they've realized the benefits of circumcision are way overstated. While it's true that circumcision can reduce the likelihood of abrasion of the skin in that area, and thus reduce the chance of the HIV virus penetrating the skin, the overall benefit is completely reduced by the behavior of the people most likely to get AIDS. Fact is, if you screw with prostitutes, especially without a condom, you're playing russian roulette.
But the worst part is people make it sound like AIDS is all you have to worry about. Nearly all of the adult film workers WILL contract some form of STD during their careers (the data backs this up), but we only hear about the times they get AIDS. We've been lied to by AIDS funding people and gay advocates who want to make it seem like anybody can get it all the time. Meanwhile the same crowd makes it seem like promiscuity is totally risk free, but even a condom won't prevent HPV.
Worse than that, something in the news a month ago showed that 25% of all NYC residents have genital herpes; with 50% of the blacks and about a third of the hispanics infected. It'll make you think twice about doing DATY with an SP. If you're gonna screw around you'd be an idiot not to take all the precautions you can.
Lately they've realized the benefits of circumcision are way overstated. While it's true that circumcision can reduce the likelihood of abrasion of the skin in that area, and thus reduce the chance of the HIV virus penetrating the skin, the overall benefit is completely reduced by the behavior of the people most likely to get AIDS. Fact is, if you screw with prostitutes, especially without a condom, you're playing russian roulette.
But the worst part is people make it sound like AIDS is all you have to worry about. Nearly all of the adult film workers WILL contract some form of STD during their careers (the data backs this up), but we only hear about the times they get AIDS. We've been lied to by AIDS funding people and gay advocates who want to make it seem like anybody can get it all the time. Meanwhile the same crowd makes it seem like promiscuity is totally risk free, but even a condom won't prevent HPV.
Worse than that, something in the news a month ago showed that 25% of all NYC residents have genital herpes; with 50% of the blacks and about a third of the hispanics infected. It'll make you think twice about doing DATY with an SP. If you're gonna screw around you'd be an idiot not to take all the precautions you can.
Last edited:
bumfie said:
The world health Organization (they should be called the world death organization) states that the requirements for an aids case in Africa is based on solely 4 symptoms which are diarhea, 10 pounds weight loss, dry cough and fever for a month. Most often the people are not given an HIV test and when they are it is only the rapid Eliza test (which are know to create false positive and react to other viruses such as the flu etc.). They came up with the idea to cut cost and because alot of places in Africa are not equipt with the technology required to do further testing. Also it gives a proof (week proof) for the theory that HIV comes from Africa. More and more doctors are raising concerns on these work ethics and in 2006 the south African president invited thousands of researches, doctors etc to discuss the aids epidemic (in Africa and abroad). 5000 doctors signed a petition to review the HIV=aids theory as they see that from their own research this is not the case. The following are two links from both sides, those who say HIV is the cause of aids and those who disagree backed up by their research.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/portals/0/documentlibrary/durbandeclarationrebuttal.htm
I am not taking sides, I am just letting you know the views of those who say HIV=Aids and those who say it does not. I am not advocating unprotected sex and neither side is. What I am telling you is that the world helth organization's definition of aids varies from Africa to north America for the same virus and that they are not required to do any HIV test before declairing someone to have aids.
Yo have not seen that I posted the link to two research one for the HIV=Aids theory and the other one who rebute it. These are just debate and should not cause disputes
Yo have not seen that I posted the link to two research one for the HIV=Aids theory and the other one who rebute it. These are just debate and should not cause disputes
dax said:
When you call the W.H.O. the "World death organization" your side is pretty clear.
As for debate, "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" is about as debatable as "Earth is flat".
Your kind of nutty conspiracy theories cause untold suffering and death among those people who you manage to sucker.
PS: You are also spreading huge misinformation on how the WHO classifies people as having AIDS in Africa. As you can see ( http://www.who.int/hiv/toronto2006/FS_HIVinfants.pdf ) even in resource limited settings and even for infants, they use DNA virological testing.
Last edited:
Similar threads
