I've been thinking a lot about the risks involved in various sexual activities that some of use partake of in the RLD. Specifically, any sort of uncovered activity.

I've been researching things, but there seems to be a lot of conflicting information. I guess I would like to discuss DATY and uncovered blowjobs in particular.

What are the risks involved in such activities, realistically? I know these activities are typically standard in Germany, for example, but as I understand it, Germany requires health certification to work as a prostitute, which is not the case in Amsterdam.

To my understanding, HIV is negligible as it cannot be passed through saliva, though if you had an abrasion of some sort on your dick and she had a sore in her mouth, it could be possible. Herpes is generally only a risk if she has visible sores. I have been told by a friend who lives in Japan that chlamydia and gonorrhoea are quite common for the girls at the "pink salons" there, which makes sense as they are bacterial infections.

It seems to me that DATY would be just as risky to me as getting an uncovered blowjob, though I could be wrong about that. People here seem to be mostly ok with DATY, but not with BBBJ so much. I did get an uncovered blowjob my last trip. I have been tested since and am clean. I just want to know how risky, exactly, such activities are. Has anyone here ever had any issues?

I have recently had a full check up at a clinic.They told me oral sex has alot less risk for hiv and is more of a risk to the person thats giving than reciving.IN the rld the girls normally respect there health and have regular check ups not sure if they need to show a recent letter to prove thay have been checked.I know of a private house every month they had to show a new health check up to be albe to work.I have always felt safer visiting girls in fkk or prives due to showering and washing isnt possible in the rld.This is one reason i dont normally have full sex in the rld.

My check up was all clear and have had many trips to the windows so i would say oral sex is quite safe.I never really ask for bbbj in the rld anyway but have had quite a few bbbj in fkk and prives.

There are studies available through the Centers for Disease Control that might answer your questions.
Unfortunately, most are based on data from sex workers in the US, which I would rate as significantly more disease prone that those in Europe for many reasons. Most include both male and female workers. Male workers have a higher incidence of disease, and also a higher incidence of IV drug use, which skews data.
That said:
When I travel, I am most afraid of bedbugs. That's what the odds tell me.

Specific to your questions, Crabs and lice are very easy to pick up, but do little damage.
Herpes is also easy to transmit, and the absence of visible sores is of little value. Unless you show up with a speculum, and know what you are looking for, you have no idea what you are getting into. Transmission without visible lesions is common with intercourse. Genital herpes and oral herpes (cold sores) are different viruses. Most people are colonized with the oral Herpes virus, but it is supressed by a normal immune system, and outbreaks of the tell-tale lesions occur during periods of stress or immunocompromise.
Gonorrhea can be transmitted via oral sex (Pharyngeal Gonorrhea), but is most commonly recieved from oral sex with infected men (the penis is a very effective tool for delivering bacteria to the pharynx!). Possible from women, but not common.
Chlamydia is very easy to transmit via unprotected intercourse, as is syphylis, which is making a comeback.
I don't know if either is transmitted orally, but i think not. It is amazing what the mouth can digest and destroy without consequence. Reminds me of a story about my brother eating cat turds as a baby, but I will save that for another day.
HIV is harder to transmit than was first imagined, and seems to require exposure to the bloodstream via vigorous anal or vaginal intercourse. Not gonna happen from DATY, BBBJ, or kissing, unless you are doing something very unusual.
Getting a BBBJ has about the same risks as getting kissed.
Most likely bad outcome from kissing--the common cold.
Performing DATY has all those risks, plus a few extras. Possible to get something extra, but rare.
Considering all the exposure to disease from people in the airport, the airplane, the train station, the hotel, the coffeeshop, the restaurant, the bike rental shop....the immune system does amazing work.
People are filthy beings, full of nasty things, and Amsterdam has been at the epicenter of disease swapping for 500 years. Be careful out there.
Stay healthy.
Don't get old.
Eat well.
Exercise.
Wash your hands (thanks Axxxtw)

Weasel

Hey Weasel, Ams and Grimnul, I really like you. Very good points. But I'm 27 and I'm getting younger.

I read somewhere that daty can increase the chance of throat cancer considerably.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Michael Douglas claimed her got throat cancer from going down on his wife. That is a helluva roundabout way to tell your wife she needs to wash better...

Anyway, the impression I get is that being with a sex worker here in North America is generally far more risky due to the fact that it's illegal. In my experience, many illegal sex workers are sex workers either because they're forced to be or because they're supporting a drug habit and thus either don't care much about safe sex, or aren't realistically able to enforce it. Escorts, who are still quasi-legal, tend to take better care of themselves, and Nevada, where there is legal and regulated prostitution has had zero cases of HIV amongst legal sex workers and their customers and negligible cases of other STIs. Yet another reason legalized prostitution is so important, but that's another issue entirely. I would imagine, therefore, that the CDC numbers are likely quite a bit higher than they would be in a country with legalized prostitution.

The girls in De Wallen for the most part seem quite fastidious about hygiene and safety, I just can't help but shake the feeling that some dude could've been in there an hour before me and filled her full of something nasty, y'know? I know how unlikely that is but it's always in the back of my mind. Makes me very paranoid about doing anything uncovered.

No one ever explains what "low risk" actually means statistically so it's hard to make a judgement. However people tend to forget that -

Low risk multiplied by high frequency = medium risk (and increasing further with higher frequency).

Several years ago I met a UK prostitute that was known for her cum swallowing. I desperately wanted to break my own strict safe sex rule and researched it as much as possible. I even phoned advice lines. Everything I read and heard said there was a risk if I received BBBJ. Based on my equation above I visited her just 6 times and then went back to my rule (which also includes no kissing). Repeating partly what others have said, according to my research HIV is not an issue though throat gonorrhea and chlamydia are. One advice line said deep throat and French kissing increased the risk of catching something.
I do find it interesting that the classier girls in the RLD never do BBBJ but girls in FKKs do. Both groups must have discussed it with their doctors, the other girls etc and came to different conclusions.

One thing that often gets overlooked:

Anyone with any sores in their mouth, bleeding gums, recent surgery, gum disease etc raises the risk of transmission to themselves significantly.

This obviously applies more to the person giving a blowjob but you might want to think twice before you go down on someone if you suffer from any mouth conditions.

yeah, I'm aware of that one. If I have a canker sore or any kind of issues with my gums or whatever, I don't do DATY. I don't want anything coming in direct contact with my bloodstream.

You can stop right there. Sores, abrasions, broken skin of any kind. All are open pathways for infection. The single most effective disease preventative that you have is an intact epidermis. Keep it that way. Even shaving nicks count.

HPV is another. Hard to see, especially in red light. Considered highly contagious. Condoms are only partially effective, since any skin contact is sufficient

Pay attention to what Weasel says. He has done his homework

the dogs

No it doesn't? A 1:100 chance today is a 1:100 chance tomorrow, or the day after, or whatever. Driving doesn't get more dangerous every time you go out surely.

That's correct but what I said is also correct. Imagine trying to get a 6 rolling a dice. Each roll has a 1:6 chance of being a 6. So you probably won't get a 6 on your first roll but it's more likely than not you will get a 6 sometime within 4 rolls and extremely likely within 20. The odds on each individual roll though doesn't change.

George,

I agree about the vague "low risk" tag.
It can include everyting between "high risk" and staying home alone.

"High risk" activities generally include:
Unprotected intercourse
Anal sex of any kind
IV drug use
***SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH PROSTITUTES***

Yes, boys and girls, if you pay to play, you are BY DEFINITION engaging in high risk sex.
You are exposed to things on the bedding, on the floor, on the doorknobs, and most importantly,
you are exposed if a condom fails. Regardless of what you are doing, if you are interviewed about sexual activity and you are doing it with a prostitute, your results are reported in the High Risk pool.

You can try to reduce your risk:
Less sex.
Fewer partners.
Partners with minimal or no exposure to others.
gentle sex
better condoms
healthier immune system
no body fluids
intact skin
no hookers
no drugs
no decision making while drunk

Sticking to the second list would be "Low Risk" activities.
The biggest problem is that you make risky decisions when you are wasted, you get wasted in Amsterdam, then you have access to all kinds of people that are willing to help you with those risky decisions.

Weasel

Well, this seems like it would sort of fall under the gambler's fallacy, that is to say that the odds are fixed and do not actually increase with frequency. The dice example, I would argue, is flawed in that your odds of rolling a 6 never actually increase, they simply appear to due to the way the human brain is wired to see patterns in things, hence the fallacy. Your odds of rolling a 6 are always exactly 1 in 6 regardless of how many times you roll.

In this case, though, one could certainly argue that there are other factors at work. For example, the longer a girl works and the more customers she sees, the more likely she is, statistically speaking, to get an STI at some point. If you keep seeing that same girl over a long period of time, there is the chance that through some confluence of events, you might wind up paying her a visit after that guy who gives her the STI does, but before she detects it. I suppose, in that sense, the odds of getting something from a particular girl over repeated visits does increase.

Yeah, also arguably the longer you do something and get away with it the more blase you become. So you might start out ultra-cautious, covered at all times but not stay that way.

I wouldn't describe this as gambler's fallacy.

If the underlying probability (or hazard) is the same per visit (and non-zero but less than certain) then the probability of contracting an STD is increasing in the number of visits. The original point is valid: if you are concerned about the overall probability of contracting an STD then the two parameters you need to consider are the risk per visit and the number of visits. A low risk per activity may translate to a high risk overall if there are enough visits.

If p is the probability of catching an infection then (1-p) is the probability you don't. If visits can be considered independent events then the probability of being disease free after one visit is 1-p and after 2 visits is equal to the probability of being disease free after the first multiplied by the probability of not getting it the second time either i.e. (1-p) * (1-p) or (1-p)^2. So if p = 0.5 then the prob of being disease free after 1 visit is 0.5 and after 2 is 0.25. You can extend the sequence to any amount of visits and work out the probability via (1-p)^n where n = number of visits.

So if there was a 1% chance of catching something nasty per visit then after 60 visits you would have had a 50% chance of catching it.

That simple calculation is valid if each event is considered independent and it gets more complicated if not, nevertheless the point of the original point is valid ... the overall risk is increasing with the number of visits even if the risk per visit stays constant.

I may be a boring old fart but that's one of the reasons I don't get wasted (drugs or alcohol) in Amsterdam. Apart from my bad diet I am a very cautious person. With over 100 trips under my belt and at least another 100 planned I don't want to be saying "Well I guess that was bound to happen sooner or later". Even though (on an off topic note) when Jennifer_Cunt robbed me that's exactly what I said.

Calculate your 'luck' (frequency*time increases risk-nothing to do with gamblers fallacy)

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

No. Probability resets itself after each event. On phone now , will try and show later. For now look at wiki on gambler's fallacy...'reasoning...that a run of luck in the past somehow influences odds in the future, is the fallacy. Jefke- had a quick look on your link- requires you to know the out come of your trials before you use it, so doesn't help with future events?

I think we are all on the same page regarding the statistics. It's more an issue of wording it correctly and differentiating between single events and groups of them.