Realistic risks of disease from visiting a sex worker?
February 8, 2006 8:01 PM Subscribe
Realistic risks of disease from visiting a sex worker?
Let's say I visit a sex worker, in a country where it is legal and tightly controlled. I wear a condom and avoid any fluid transfer. The person I visit has regular health checks as part of the business licensing laws.
What are my realistic risks of contracting any form of STD?
Let's say I visit a sex worker, in a country where it is legal and tightly controlled. I wear a condom and avoid any fluid transfer. The person I visit has regular health checks as part of the business licensing laws.
What are my realistic risks of contracting any form of STD?
In the developed world, you're probably alright. Most prostitutes take more precautions than the ordinary person to keep free of STIs. In the developing world, it's a crapshoot.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 8:30 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 8:30 PM on February 8, 2006
that appears to be the standard answer for normal, protected sex acts
What constitutes a "normal" sex act?
posted by drewbeck at 8:59 PM on February 8, 2006
What constitutes a "normal" sex act?
posted by drewbeck at 8:59 PM on February 8, 2006
I suppose there's a slim chance of oral herpes, or some grody yeast infection, but yeah, if it's "tightly controlled", you're certainly no worse off than if you picked up someone for a one-night-stand.
posted by mkultra at 9:05 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by mkultra at 9:05 PM on February 8, 2006
"Any form of STD" is a bit vague, given that different STDs have different modes of transmission, but condoms and health checks do act in your favor. Still, both herpes and genital warts can be transfered via skin-on-skin contact, without "fluid transfer." The risk increases when visible symptoms are present, but there is still some smaller risk when no sores/warts are visible. For another example, crabs can be passed along "even if there is no penetration or exchange of bodily fluids."
Also, the regular health checks aren't a guarantee, given the latency period that often takes place between infection and antibody development/symptoms. Without further details about the kinds of activities you're engaging in (do you, if male, use the condoms when receiving oral sex, e.g.?), it's difficult to say much more. But definitely spend time reading about the different kinds of sexually transmitted disease out there.
posted by mediareport at 9:13 PM on February 8, 2006
Also, the regular health checks aren't a guarantee, given the latency period that often takes place between infection and antibody development/symptoms. Without further details about the kinds of activities you're engaging in (do you, if male, use the condoms when receiving oral sex, e.g.?), it's difficult to say much more. But definitely spend time reading about the different kinds of sexually transmitted disease out there.
posted by mediareport at 9:13 PM on February 8, 2006
Depends on what sexual activites you engage in--oral vs vaginal vs anal.
posted by gramcracker at 11:11 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by gramcracker at 11:11 PM on February 8, 2006
moral questions aside, you're way too anxious re: the STD thing. wear a condom and do your thing, if you like that. you're at higher risk of heart attack if you're overweight, or to die in a car crash if you commute in a car.
posted by matteo at 11:51 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by matteo at 11:51 PM on February 8, 2006
The major risks are warts and herpes, even without symptoms and even with a condom. Herpes is actually shed at pretty much the same rate regardless of whether an outbreak is occuring. It's pretty likely that a commercial sex worker has been exposed to herpes. Of course herpes is a chronic infection, and some subset of HPV (warts) result in chronic infection, although the newest research suggests that most people exposed to warts clear it from their body with their own immune system.
The other risk would be oral transmission of an STD if no condom is used during oral sex. Again, herpes, but also all the other biggies. HIV is unlikely, but it's easy to get syphillis from oral sex if the person performing has it. Low risk if the worker is getting regular checkups, and aside from herpes (and the very unlikely HIV, not impossible to get, just unlikely), easily treated.
Now, my safe sex talk about HIV. While regular HIV tests are a must for everyone with any risk factors for HIV, and semi-regular tests should be part of general health care for anyone who is not monogamous, there's a big problem with the way that HIV is tested for in the body. It's common knowledge that the standard HIV test tests for antibodies to the virus that may not be present for several months after infection, which means that anyone getting tested for HIV can have a negative test, but actually be positive, if their last risky sex act was less than three months before the test. What's less widely considered is that viral loads of HIV in the body immediately post-infection (ie inside that ~three month window) are very high. I was talking with an epidemiologst just a few weeks ago who said that he'd read a new study that suggests that about 50% of people infected with HIV are infected by someone who has themselves just been infected. In other words, 50% of HIV infection seems to occur between people who would both test negative for HIV. This indicates that safe sex is of paramount importance, especially with people who engage in risky sex (like sex workers, who are at risk just by virtue of the number of their partners), because it's very easy to be infected before a test would determine that they were positive.
Still, the risk is low and using a condom makes it lower.
posted by OmieWise at 5:58 AM on February 9, 2006
The other risk would be oral transmission of an STD if no condom is used during oral sex. Again, herpes, but also all the other biggies. HIV is unlikely, but it's easy to get syphillis from oral sex if the person performing has it. Low risk if the worker is getting regular checkups, and aside from herpes (and the very unlikely HIV, not impossible to get, just unlikely), easily treated.
Now, my safe sex talk about HIV. While regular HIV tests are a must for everyone with any risk factors for HIV, and semi-regular tests should be part of general health care for anyone who is not monogamous, there's a big problem with the way that HIV is tested for in the body. It's common knowledge that the standard HIV test tests for antibodies to the virus that may not be present for several months after infection, which means that anyone getting tested for HIV can have a negative test, but actually be positive, if their last risky sex act was less than three months before the test. What's less widely considered is that viral loads of HIV in the body immediately post-infection (ie inside that ~three month window) are very high. I was talking with an epidemiologst just a few weeks ago who said that he'd read a new study that suggests that about 50% of people infected with HIV are infected by someone who has themselves just been infected. In other words, 50% of HIV infection seems to occur between people who would both test negative for HIV. This indicates that safe sex is of paramount importance, especially with people who engage in risky sex (like sex workers, who are at risk just by virtue of the number of their partners), because it's very easy to be infected before a test would determine that they were positive.
Still, the risk is low and using a condom makes it lower.
posted by OmieWise at 5:58 AM on February 9, 2006
To clarify something above - yeast infections are not sexually transmitted.
posted by tristeza at 8:54 AM on February 9, 2006
posted by tristeza at 8:54 AM on February 9, 2006
Yeast infections absolutely can be sexually transmitted. It's very easy for a woman to have one, pass it to her male partner who is asymptomatic, treat herself, and become reinfected again from him. Same goes for M/M and F/F sex. My source is Sue Johansen. Sorry, tristeza, you're utterly wrong on that one.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:10 AM on February 9, 2006
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:10 AM on February 9, 2006
Very rarely, I think it's somewhat more complicated with yeast infections. They can be transmitted through sexual intercourse, but most people experience a yeast infection when an imbalance is reached in naturally occuring fauna. I think it has to do with the acidity of the environment. In any case I think you're both right -- it can be transmitted, albeit rarely, to a partner but I don't know if you'd consider it an STD in the classic sense.
posted by geoff. at 10:29 AM on February 9, 2006
posted by geoff. at 10:29 AM on February 9, 2006
There ARE STDs that can be transmitted while wearing a condom because they only require touching of skin in infected areas - I *think* that was either warts or more likely, herpes - I'm not totally sure though. I learned that in Biology of Human Sexuality, when the instructor passed around a female condom and explained that since it covered the surrounding area (picture about a 4" diameter ring with a bag attached to it - the ring part being placed outside of the vagina and covering parts of the labia & perineum area) it provided more protection against contact diseases.
If I remember to, I will come back later and give more technical info from the textbook - have to wrap birthday presents for a 2 year old!
posted by mojabunni at 2:23 PM on February 9, 2006
If I remember to, I will come back later and give more technical info from the textbook - have to wrap birthday presents for a 2 year old!
posted by mojabunni at 2:23 PM on February 9, 2006
dirtynumbangelboy - my boss is an internationally renowned researcher on vaginal infections, and she maintains that yeast is not a sexually transmitted pathogen, although it's associated with sexual activity. I'm taking her word over an Oxygen network sex show host.
posted by tristeza at 3:03 PM on February 9, 2006
posted by tristeza at 3:03 PM on February 9, 2006
« Older How do I keep pandemonium from breaking loose in... | Quickbooks Pro Export Question? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
The medical consensus is that the risks are exceptionally low. (that appears to be the standard answer for normal, protected sex acts, even in unregulated areas).
posted by I Love Tacos at 8:19 PM on February 8, 2006