Thread: Safe Sex and Sex Related Discussions in Thailand
+
Add Report
Results 1,801 to 1,815 of 2918
-
01-19-08 01:43 #1118
Posts: 2534Originally Posted by Rbamane
no, it's not safe !!!
But as Mick Licker already said, it's more risky for the girl than for you. The saliva has a ph-value which isn't ideal for the HIV virus.
Nevertheless, suggest the girls has a bleeding gum, so would you put you r uncovered dick in a blood sample of her ?
Better safe than sorry, this little extra is not worth the risk IMHO.
-
01-11-08 19:03 #1117
Posts: 3823Originally Posted by Rbamane
I believe girls have been known to get HIV this way, although quite rarely.
-
01-11-08 18:10 #1116
Posts: 263First time in BKK
Hello friends,
Questions -
0) Is it safe to get a BBBJCIM in BKK?
1) Feb 7 - Chinese new year starts and celebrations continue for 2 weeks, is it going to be all quiet in BKK or will there be action available?
Thanks,
-R.
-
01-07-08 20:57 #1115
Posts: 2534Opebo,
I don't want to discuss the use of condoms with you because it is in vain and you are a lost cause. You are one of the reasons why the rest of us should only go covered. I wouldn't even shake your hand.
Nevertheless, you "justify" you misbehaviour by telling us how superior unprotected sex is because a condom would reduce the sensation.
This might be true for a low-life like you who is sticking his dick into everything that can't run away fast enough.
Many others may even want to reduce the sensation to enable them to extend their sessions and prolong them as much as they can.
Ever though about it ?
Guess you even need Viagra and the like to get your unsensitive "head" - the one you seem to think with - up.
Or do you need some shit at the top of it to get aroused ?
Why else do you put your uncovered dick in shitholes ?
-
01-07-08 17:41 #1114
Posts: 1641Excellent points, Dickhead, regarding the advisability of keeping covered at all times. I would only interject that I have never been to South America, nor have I claimed so.
As for withdrawal, Animby, it greatly reduces the likelihood of pregnancy and hiv transmission. It is true that it makes little difference regarding minor STDs, but those are of little concern. I however do not find its efficacy an adequate appeal, as the practice is somewhat unsatisfying. Was it Rimbaud who said that there is no pleasure in life like cumming in warm, wet flesh?
-
01-07-08 13:43 #1113
Posts: 116Oxy and other morons
Originally Posted by Opebo
In fact, there is no need for a full ejaculation to cause pregnancy - though, yes, it increases the odds. But, then, so does the female orgasm. So, I suspect you tell the girl the reason you don't make her cum is for her own protection.
Ejaculation is entirely unrequired for passing STDs. So withdrawal is not going to change a thing. Somehow, though, I suspect you spend a lot of time convincing the girls otherwise.
Opebo, you make me sad. For a minor increase in your own pleasure, you put so many people at risk and then justify it by saying they know the risks and CHOOSE to take them for the obvious reward of your company.
-
01-06-08 19:42 #1112
Posts: 3359it sort of reminds me of the irish couple who had 9 kids in 8 years so the doctor recommended condoms and a few months later the wife is pregnant again. so the doctor interviews the husband and he swore he wore condoms all the time, every time. but, he did say that after three or four days he had to [CodeWord140] so bad he cut a hole in the end of it.
i find opebo incredible as well. i don't know where he is from but recently he seems to be claiming to live in medellín, colombia, where he goes to an area known as la mayorista (means wholesaler; this is a warehouse district) seeking bbfs. this is one of the worst, most dangerous areas i have ever been to in latin america and that is saying a lot. ****d girls, blatant drug addicts, you name it. having bareback anal in la mayorista to me would be akin to putting a live grenade between your scrotum and your perineum and pulling the pin.
then there is all this talk about "pulling out." another bbfs advocate, col bog, is proud of how he "always" does that. hello? pre-cum? it only takes one? does your dick ever get wet and slippery at the end before you "come"? yes, dad, father, papi, it does. plus these guys who "always" pull out tend to have flexible definitions of "always." there tend to be "mistakes" and "accidents." oh shit baby i am really sorry but you were just so great i couldn't help myself. uh, i gotta go now.
-
01-06-08 03:53 #1111
Posts: 1345Originally Posted by Dickhead
But feel free to have unprotected wet dreams whenever you like, you cheeky bugger.
-
01-06-08 02:25 #1110
Posts: 467Originally Posted by Dickhead
-
01-05-08 21:39 #1109
Posts: 3359What about masturbating with a condom on? That would be even better because what if you are jacking off in a short-time hotel and you spooge all over the place and they don't change the sheets? Couldn't the next hooker who uses the bed get AIDS?
In fact it would be best to sleep with a condom on because you could have a wet dream and this could lead to the same thing. Therefore it is completely irresponsible to ever have your penis uncovered. Just put on a fresh condom every time you take a [CodeWord140]. That's the way to go.
-
01-04-08 10:36 #1108
Posts: 1749Originally Posted by Opebo
-
01-02-08 12:27 #1107
Posts: 1641Originally Posted by Rubber Nursey
An interesting sign of their understanding of sexual matters is that many of them, as a condition to agreeing to condomless sex, ask that one 'pull out' and ejaculate outside the vagina or anus. This shows that they probably understand that sperm is a necessary cause of pregnancy, and that receiving ejaculate is much higher risk for hiv than finishing outside. Of course, the flaw in this strategy is that most men, once inside, will come inside, but at least the request shows these ladies are cognizant of the issues.
As for refusal, in most cases it is really not all that difficult to find another customer. It would usually just involve waiting a short while. I think what makes it difficult for them to refuse is that many, possibly most, customers insist as I do. So in that respect it is not reasonable to 'blame' me for putting someone at risk when this is commonplace or normal in the 'market'. Lastly I think that many women, particularly those over say 25 or 30, have already had so much condomless sex that they consider themselves 'high risk' and thus do not place a great import on insisting on the condom-usage.
Though I make no apologies for my actions, I do apologize for giving the impression that I comment about this issue on this wonderful board to 'gain attention'. I hope and believe that is not the case. I comment because I think it is an interesting and important aspect of our hobby, and because I think that many pro-condom people are unrealistic in their assumptions about what is going on out there.
In fact I think that condomless sex is just as common as the 'protected' kind in farang-oriented sexual services in Southeast Asia. This is worth talking about for two reasons - 1) some who have not yet visited this part of the world may be seeking bareback, and will appreciate knowing it is available, and 2) others may wish to avoid playing here due to this factor.
-
01-02-08 11:16 #1106
Posts: 1345Originally Posted by Jungle Bluebird
-
01-02-08 10:51 #1105
Posts: 275Thanks for that
Thanks for telling Opebo the way it is. Truth is, he does not care. It's his thing to get attention on this forum - the bareback pitch. Best ignore.
JB
Originally Posted by Rubber Nursey
-
01-02-08 10:37 #1104
Posts: 1345As you know, Opebo, I don't care a damn about your own sexual health, nor do I take issue with your personal aversion to condoms. I hate condoms. As a wh*re I enforced condom use without compromise but, as I have always openly admitted, I rarely practice the same caution in my private life.
What I find so abhorrent is your complete disregard for the wellbeing of others. Putting your own sexual satisfaction over the health and welfare of another is simply unconscionable to me. When I choose to have sex without a condom a) I'm a woman, so I'm at much greater risk of catching something than my male partner is, b) I'm able to make a calculated risk assessment, thanks to extensive sexual health education, c) I have access to alternative contraception, free STD tests and treatment, and the morning after pill (or legal abortion) if necessary and d) I know for a fact that I'm not putting my partner at risk, because I have regular STD checks.
The women you 'convince' to do you bareback don't have these luxuries. You hold all the cards in the transaction. I really don't care if you end up catching something - you are an intelligent man who is well aware of the risk he's taking and you made an informed decision to take that risk. That's your right and I totally respect that, just as I respect a person's 'right' to take drugs or drink or smoke or SELL SEX or engage in any other so-called 'victimless crime' that society doesn't approve of.
But what you do is outright abuse and exploitation. Many (if not all) of these women either don't fully understand the risks, or are not in a position to refuse. Even if they DO understand the risks, do they have access to adequate healthcare after the fact? Can they walk into a free clinic and have an STD test? Can they get a safe abortion if you get them pregnant?
I just can't fathom how you can put so many people at risk (the girls, their partners, their children, the poor responsible clients who come after you and have a condom break, etc) ...all because sex 'feels better' if you're not wearing a condom. That is the most selfish thing I've ever heard.