Safe Sex

[CaptCabins]

I am currently having some outbreak and it is kinda flaring out even with the drugs. Does anyone here have any advice on what ointment, cream, drugs or herbal medicinve that can make the outbreak duration heal faster. I hate this itchy sensation and I tend to scratch down there a lot. Been popping vitamin see but doesn't seem to make any difference as well.

[Manny51]

Simian, thanks for clarifying. Your belief that sex with condoms reduces the risk of transmission to zero explains a lot of your opinions. I am not sure if I agree with that underlying assumption, but at least I understand your point of view. I'll give it some thought. I'll have to, because I still have this nagging curiosity about visiting the Phillipines!

However, I am sure that by looking at people's various responses on the forum, you may probably see what I mean by some people looking for ways to rationalize being reckless.

[Rick Rock]

Right. Lots of danger. Lots of high risk activity. Even high levels of STDs. But yet very low HIV rates. That's my point.

Same as Japan. Probably 85% of the male population engages in the hobby including very regular visits to pink salons (public blowjob bars, all over the country) , almost no one wears condoms ever, many of them travel for business and do hookers without a rubber in third world countries, yet almost no HIV to be found.

[Simian]

Don't think so. Plenty of groups on the ground testing, even destitute male prostitute drugs addicts working the streets.

From Wikipedia:

"Wary of nearby Thailand's growing epidemic in the late 1980s, the Philippines was quick to recognize its own sociocultural risks and vulnerabilities to HIV / AIDS. Early responses included the 1992 creation of the Philippine National AIDS Council (PNAC) , the country's highest HIV / AIDS policymaking body. Members of the Council represent 17 governmental agencies, including local governments and the two houses of the legislature; seven nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) ; and an association of PLWHA.

"The passing of the Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act in 1998 was also a landmark in the country's fight against HIV / AIDS. However, the Philippines is faced with the challenge of stimulating government leadership action in a low-HIV-prevalence country to advocate for a stronger and sustainable response to AIDS when faced with other competing priorities. One strategy has been to prevent STIs in general, which are highly prevalent in the country."

From the same Wikipedia article we see the following:

"Several factors put the Philippines in danger of a broader HIV / AIDS epidemic. They include increasing population mobility within and outside of the Philippine islands; a conservative culture, adverse to publicly discussing issues of a sexual nature; rising levels of sex work, casual sex, unsafe sex, and injecting drug use. [5]

There is also high STI prevalence and poor health-seeking behaviors among at-risk groups; gender inequality; weak integration of HIV / AIDS responses in local government activities; shortcomings in prevention campaigns; inadequate social and behavioral research and monitoring; and the persistence of stigma and discrimination, which results in the relative invisibility of PLWHA [people living with HIV and AIDS]. Lack of knowledge about HIV among the Filipino population is troubling. Approximately two-thirds of young women lack comprehensive knowledge on HIV transmission, and 90 percent of the population of reproductive age believe you can contract HIV by sharing a meal with someone. [5]"

[Rick Rock]

Don't think so. Plenty of groups on the ground testing, even destitute male prostitute drugs addicts working the streets.

From Wikipedia:

"Wary of nearby Thailand's growing epidemic in the late 1980s, the Philippines was quick to recognize its own sociocultural risks and vulnerabilities to HIV / AIDS. Early responses included the 1992 creation of the Philippine National AIDS Council (PNAC) , the country's highest HIV / AIDS policymaking body. Members of the Council represent 17 governmental agencies, including local governments and the two houses of the legislature; seven nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) ; and an association of PLWHA.

"The passing of the Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act in 1998 was also a landmark in the country's fight against HIV / AIDS. However, the Philippines is faced with the challenge of stimulating government leadership action in a low-HIV-prevalence country to advocate for a stronger and sustainable response to AIDS when faced with other competing priorities. One strategy has been to prevent STIs in general, which are highly prevalent in the country."

[Simian]

And yet the Philippines and Japan, countries with massive sex industries where condoms are extremely unpopular, have immensely lower HIV rates than Thailand.

The difference between the HIV rates might have much more to do with the level of honest reporting in Thailand and the relative unreporting in the Philippines. I cannot speak for Japan but I know Thailand and the Philippines and quite a bit about their health systems. More than a few years ago when HIV started to get big in the country, Thailand made the decision not to hide the level of HIV and AIDS but instead to educate people and to put safe sex and condoms on the front page, so to speak. This stopped what was becoming an epidemic from becoming a real catastrophe.

Philippines, on the other hand, can barely get its act together to pass a seriously watered down Reproductive Health Bill against severe opposition of the Catholic Church. It took 11 years to do so. They don't admit they have a problem and everyone hides it. Poor people (the majority) do not get tested because it is too expensive. If the rates of TB even in Manila are anything to go by (they are frighteningly high among the general population) , the true rates of HIV will far exceed what is reported.

[Rick Rock]

And yet the Philippines and Japan, countries with massive sex industries where condoms are extremely unpopular, have immensely lower HIV rates than Thailand.

[Simian]

Thanks for you in- depth response. I went through it carefully and find that I agree with some of your thoughts but not all, as follows:

It seems that some of your thoughts are cautions, which I agree with. For example, one can't necessarily generalize a factor of safety to a particular girl. You can never know everything about everyone. So yes, streetwalkers and girls with trackmarks on their arm are a no go. Also, yes, STD testing is not foolproof, whether through fraudulent manipulation or just unknown, infection without outward signs.

But where I disagree is where you use these cautions to rationalize seemingly incorrect conclusions. For example, you make a pretty good argument that Thailand is safer than the Philippines. I don't understand why you then back off and say you can't generalize across countries. Of course you can. If girls in the PI are much more likely to go bareback, and guys who like to go bareback go to the PI, then the statistical odds of your newfound partner being infected are higher. If your own personal practices are consistent, meaning you use condoms all the time and stay away from 'riskier' partners, like streetwalkers or IV drug users, then the statistical odds of STD contraction are lower in Thailand the PI.

There are two primary variables here that determine the statistical odds of STD acquisition. The first is your personal habits, like wearing a condom, which determine the odds of transmission. The second is the statistical chance that your partner is infected.

Of course testing at Campo Alegre in Curacao is not perfect. It will always be a leaky bucket, and some providers will sneak through. But it definitely results in a lower overall STD prevalence relative to a comparable place that does not test. Maybe not as much as we would like, but definitely yes. To argue that it does not is ludicrous. The natural extension is then that yes, there are some places that are safer than others. Likewise, the prevalence of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa is much higher than the rest of the world. To say that sex there is not riskier is nonsense.

I have observed a concerning attitude with some members of the forum in that they use exceptions in the system to rationalize unsafe behavior. 'Oh, providers can beat STD testing, and some people are infected and don't show it, so I might as well do what I want. ' Reckless members of the community increase the risk for everyone.

I don't think that you think that way, but you spend a large part of your very long post explaining all these exceptions and caveats, so it gives the impression that you do. I already stated that I always use condoms, so why do you spend so long pointing out that if I don't wear one, the risk goes up?

We are all adults here. There is always some element of risk with sex. I don't think that anyone, including myself, is so deluded as to think that there is a risk-free place out there somewhere. I just want to minimize that risk. Therefore I ask, are there any countries / cities / venues that are generally safer or riskier than others? Not 100% safe, but relatively safer.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer. You can make generalizations about populations but when it comes to the hobby the situation is more complex because the STD profile of the general population can differ widely from the STD profile of sex-workers in general or specific types of sex-workers (FL, BG, Massage girl, streetwalker etc). Philippines has much more STD in the general populations than in Thailand because, IMHO, Filipinos do not use condoms and do not go readily to doctors when they get something, esp if they are poor. However, if you go to Angeles, you will most likely find that the bargirls there are much more keen on using condoms than the general population. In this way, it is very difficult to generalize across countries in respect to the hobby. Certainly, from the premise that the incidence of STDs is lower in THailand than in Phil, I would not draw the conclusion that it is safe to bareback pros or semi-pros in Thailand.

In relation to use of condoms with pros generally and the risks of contacting STDs, I would say that, with certain provisos, the risk of getting STDs while using a condom is almost zero no matter who you are having sex with. Therefore, there is really going to be almost no difference between the infinitely small chance of catching an STD using condoms with pros in Philippines and the infinitely small chance of catching an STD while using condoms in Thailand.

Even though your statement, that reckless behaviour of others raises the risk for everyone, is technically true, the raising of that risk, especially with respect to HIV, is so infinitely small for those who practice the basics of safe sex, namely FS with a condom. Actually, I believe that the reckless behaviour you refer to only raises the risks for the reckless, for those who bareback all sorts of girls all the time and don't care what they get. Those with very low risk aversion who don't care if they get an STD.

THe provisos I mention above are that the condom is a bone fide brand, the girl is not completely dry (which can break the condom) , the girl has not used baby oil as lube and she has no sores around the entrance of the vagina that would indicate that she has herpes. I include the latter because it is technically possible to get herpes while using a condom although condom use will greatly reduce the incidence but always worth a check of the girl first. In addition to condom use, you can further reduce herpes and other STD risk by using certain ointments / creams before sex; I would only use such measures if I had to either monger in an area which had a high incidence of herpes or had high incident of infected providers with really rotten hygiene, say in some parts of Africa.

For me, every new encounter (pro, semi-pro or non-pro) carries with it the assumption that the girl has some infection. If I thought that use of a condom plus the other items mentioned above did not reduce the risk of catching what she might have to almost zero (with the provisos above) , I would not practice the hobby in the same way. I also prefer covered BJ or BJ with mouthwash use to keep the risk down.

My comments on risks, barebacking and condom use were not addressed to you personally but were addressed to anyone reading this part of the forum. I had no idea about the precise nature of your practices and therefore was not addressing them. I only took up some points raised by you concerning the incidence of STDs and presented my own personal strategy and how others might evolve a different strategy.

There are people who rationally take on more risk than others. Attitude to risk is a subjective matter. In an interactive situation such as mongering (or driving, for example) , everyone would prefer if others had a high aversion to risk and practiced safe sex for the reasons I gave before (greater numbers of both non pro and pro for sex, lower risk of catching STD etc). But it is not up to me to preach to other mongerers even if I think the risks they run are adverse to their own well-being. That is their business.

For me personally, I am very averse to even the less problematic STDs because I don't want to mess up my personal life with non-pro significant others, esp if I am barebacking them. Many mongerers do not have significant others and for them this will not be an issue. For instance, my earlier practice of accepting every BBBJ offered without the girl using mouthwash might make a lot of sense to someone who does not have significant others or who has but he does not bareback them.

Having made the point that attitude to risk is a personal matter, I do find your following observation to be strange: " 'Oh, providers can beat STD testing, and some people are infected and don't show it, so I might as well do what I want. '" People who think that they might as well act recklessly because the risks are hard to quantify or because the risks are higher than they ought to be are just plain stupid or are hiding a very low risk-aversion attitude.

As to your question, if you use a condom effectively it really does not matter greatly where or with whom you monger when it comes to risk. Even in places where STDs are higher among providers, your chances of getting an STD will be so infinitely small with effective condom use. But as attitude to risk is subjective and if this miniscule increased risk appears to be important to you, I would make the following suggestions regarding the prevalence of STDs:

- speaking generally, the more developed the location is and the better the education and health system is, the less likely a local provider is going to acquire an STD or to have an STD for an extended period. In Europe, a well-run establishment, esp one that uses health-checks, is going to have fewer STD infections than a massage place in Bangkok. THe massage place in Bangkok is likely to have fewer STD infections than a similar sex-on-site place in Philippines or Cambodia. This might also be the case with the type of freelancers who hang out at indoor venues but probably would not make sense if you were to compare street walkers in a European country with streetwalkers for local trade in an Asian country due to drug addition and other issues.

- in theory, widespread testing should reduce STD instance but in practice I rather doubt it for reasons given in my previous post.

- unless there are strict effective testing controls in place (which I always doubt anyway) , any establishment that caters exclusively to foreigners that allows barebacking is going to have more girls with STDs than an establishment that does not, no matter which country or city it is to be found in. Even with testing, as I said before, most STDs can be transmitted between tests before being caught or are not found by a test or until it is too late.

- Brothels that cater to locals will have large instances of STDs if STDs are prevalent locally and if customers don't use condoms much.

- a case could be made that bargirls or girls who are attached or contracted to an establishment (massage parlours in Thailand) are less likely to have an STD than FLs simply because the girls in the establishment may have a support group in the form of their coworkers that could tell them what to do, what meds to take and / or the establishment might itself provide support in the form of meds or even training in safe sex practices. That said, sometimes the rules of the establishment are not carried out. If a customer visits the same girl a few times, she might even offer him bareback with or without an extra fee (has happened to me in a well-run establishment in Bangkok that carries out "tests" and I got an STD from the girl when I barebacked her).

- with freelancers you can often find a huge variation within the same location or even venue. I have met semi-pros who were far better informed and took better care of themselves than serious full-time FL pros and would never go bareback for any money. I have also met semi-pros who barebacked so as to create a relationship with the customer. On the other hand, I also met FL pros who were very sensible.

- there are the obvious aspects that you mentioned. Girls with trackmarks, sores, looking too thin, strange behaviour etc. But these are not country specific as such folks are to be found everywhere.

I don't believe that there is a mongering location that is SIGNIFICANTLY safer or riskier for mongerers who observe effective condom use along the lines that I describe. In the case of non-pros, I suggest the data on STDs published by the WHO and others will be of use (although some of that is not entirely accurate either). I don't think that the STD data on the general population is helpful when it comes to mongering in places that cater to foreigners only for the reasons I give above.

[Manny51]

Thanks for you in- depth response. I went through it carefully and find that I agree with some of your thoughts but not all, as follows:

It seems that some of your thoughts are cautions, which I agree with. For example, one can't necessarily generalize a factor of safety to a particular girl. You can never know everything about everyone. So yes, streetwalkers and girls with trackmarks on their arm are a no go. Also, yes, STD testing is not foolproof, whether through fraudulent manipulation or just unknown, infection without outward signs.

But where I disagree is where you use these cautions to rationalize seemingly incorrect conclusions. For example, you make a pretty good argument that Thailand is safer than the Philippines. I don't understand why you then back off and say you can't generalize across countries. Of course you can. If girls in the PI are much more likely to go bareback, and guys who like to go bareback go to the PI, then the statistical odds of your newfound partner being infected are higher. If your own personal practices are consistent, meaning you use condoms all the time and stay away from 'riskier' partners, like streetwalkers or IV drug users, then the statistical odds of STD contraction are lower in Thailand the PI.

There are two primary variables here that determine the statistical odds of STD acquisition. The first is your personal habits, like wearing a condom, which determine the odds of transmission. The second is the statistical chance that your partner is infected.

Of course testing at Campo Alegre in Curacao is not perfect. It will always be a leaky bucket, and some providers will sneak through. But it definitely results in a lower overall STD prevalence relative to a comparable place that does not test. Maybe not as much as we would like, but definitely yes. To argue that it does not is ludicrous. The natural extension is then that yes, there are some places that are safer than others. Likewise, the prevalence of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa is much higher than the rest of the world. To say that sex there is not riskier is nonsense.

I have observed a concerning attitude with some members of the forum in that they use exceptions in the system to rationalize unsafe behavior. 'Oh, providers can beat STD testing, and some people are infected and don't show it, so I might as well do what I want. ' Reckless members of the community increase the risk for everyone.

I don't think that you think that way, but you spend a large part of your very long post explaining all these exceptions and caveats, so it gives the impression that you do. I already stated that I always use condoms, so why do you spend so long pointing out that if I don't wear one, the risk goes up?

We are all adults here. There is always some element of risk with sex. I don't think that anyone, including myself, is so deluded as to think that there is a risk-free place out there somewhere. I just want to minimize that risk. Therefore I ask, are there any countries / cities / venues that are generally safer or riskier than others? Not 100% safe, but relatively safer.

[Simian]

please elaborate on your reasons as much as possible. cheers!

i don't think that you can measure the balance between safety and satisfaction for whole countries or even locations. to do so would be to generalize so much as not to be useful.

for instance, hiv is very prevalent in certain african countries but this does not mean that a particular african working girl is more likely to give you hiv or an std than say an asian provider (see my point about hiv in africa below which shows that the sex trade had little to do with hiv prevalence in parts of africa).

even if you are not in philippines or africa or any other country with that reputation for high instance of stds, you are not necessarily out of the risk zone. one approach would be to focus on the girl rather than the country. where did you find her, what about her knowledge / education, her hygiene, what kind of establishment does she work in or is she from the street etc. these factors plus background knowledge you have picked up will help you to reduce the risks. however, this is an inexact method in working out how to arrive at a strategy (do i bareback, do i accept uncovered bj?) regarding a provider who you do not know, have never met before etc. and if you are like me, i am not known for my best insights or decisions when i am anticipating sex with some hottie. it is much better for me to make the decisions in the cold light of day!

you mentioned a location where the girls get tested and therefore this is safer, curacao. in theory testing should make the hobby safer but in practice it frequently only provides us with a false sense of security. i have never visited curacao but i know establishments in other countries where testing has take place but have not caught up with employees who really had stds. even in western countries, people have been fooling employers about their drug status for years by providing a different person's [CodeWord109] etc. in developing countries, it is very easy to bribe or trick your way through such employer mandated tests. the doctor does not know the girl and she could easily send her sister who is not infected. i know someone who was able to get a clean bill of health to start a job despite the fact that he had heart trouble just because he dropped a little too much money in the hand of the doctor.

it also depends on what they test for, whether they test all the girls and how regularly etc. will the establishment take their most popular girls out of circulation just because they have caught something?. assuming the test finds it, they are more likely to keep a girl working while she is on her meds rather than take her out for a few weeks. i take all such matters of testing with a pinch of salt.

of course, you may have experience of curacao that would backup a claim that they always test every girl every week for every std and they have a proper physical exam, including a peek into the vagina and a check of surrounding areas to look for sores etc. however, the irony is that if a place is known as "safe for barebacking," more barebacking will take place thereby raising the risk. more guys who have barebacked for a long time will come to that place because barebacking is so prevalent and the incidence of barebacking rises. it then increases the chances that a girl will get infected between tests and pass it on to another barebacking guy who will pass it on to another girl etc. it is always possible that a girl will get infected between tests and pass it on or that the infection does not show itself for weeks (such as hiv) and will be missed during several tests anyway. following this logic, the very reputation of being safe for barebacking of pros, even in places where it has been made "safe" through testing, ultimately increases the chance of the mongerer getting an std through barebacking.

before i set out what my position is, i want to make a few points about risks and stds. many folks think about stds in terms of hiv only and they say that getting hiv is not so bad anyway these days. i completely disagree. hiv is no picnic. ask anyone who is infected and how it has affected their lives.

some also say that it is difficult to get hiv from vaginal heterosexual sex. actually, if a man has unprotected sex with a hiv infected woman, the probability is approx 1-250 that he will get hiv. many other variables go into this, including how much the virus is surging in the infected woman (whether she is already on meds) , whether the man is circumcised, whether the man has already got an std etc etc. having a pre-existing std raises the risk to 1 in 5. if someone thinks that 1 chance in 250 is a reasonable risk, then those are good odds for him. but not for me. so i always rubber up when mongering, especially given the reasons i give below.

but you cannot get hiv from bj. that is true, as far as we know at least, but you can get quite a few other infections. saliva does help to kill off some infections but is not guaranteed. i have got several infections from bjs. one was particularly hard to shift and plagued my social life for over a month.

i don't want to get stds for a number of reasons:

- at times when i have a significant other, i don't want to pass it on to any of my sexual partners because i don't want to inflict the infection on others. i also don't want to have to go into explanations and lose trust with my significant others.

- i don't want women (pro, semi and non-pro) to reject me because it has become obvious that i have an std. nothing worse than the "yuk" reaction quickly followed by rejection.

- stds raise the risk of getting other infections, including hiv.

- i don't like the symptoms and am concerned that it might be a difficult to kill the infection.

- some stds other than hiv are no picnic too, especially if they are difficult to get rid of. you can even get cancer from an (non-hiv) std.

i am not an especially risk-averse person but my barebacking rules of thumb is as follows:

- only if you know a woman for a significant time and you know her sexual history and current activities should you consider barebacking her. and that goes for any country.

- never bareback a pro or semi-pro. both pro and semipro often have regular boyfriends and you are dependent on the boyfriend's sexual practices that you just cannot know. you also cannot be sure that you are the only special customer / friend who she barebacks.

- having said that, many pros are much safer than regular girls because they practice safe or safer sex. if you are having an affair with a non-pro who has a regular boyfriend / husband or barebacks others, you should rubber up too. i got an std in those circumstances even though the lady told me that the hubby was not having sex with her any more. but he rolled up drunk one night and she let him do it rather than create a fuss and she passed it on to me.

to illustrate the last point, many people, including the early researchers into hiv transmission, made the mistake that hiv is largely made prevalent through sex work, that those who contracted the condition were either sex workers, customers of sex workers or regular partners of customers of sex workers. but they found that in some african countries, the virus was rampant even though the there was little connection to sex work. what they found was that men and women in those countries were more likely to have long-term relationships that overlapped with other long-term relationships, as was always the case for centuries. the man would have a wife in the city plus a mistress if he could afford, plus a girlfriend in another city where he travelled for work plus the girl back in his home village who he would visit on his trips to visit his family. he invariably barebacks these women, especially during their non-fertile times because they are not hookers. some, perhaps all of those women would have at least one other man in their lives. each of those men would have at least one more lady in their lives. huge networks of people are now connected up in a transmission network without being aware of it. if only one person in the chain gets hiv, it is only a matter of time before the rest get it too.

back to your particular question, there is such variety among women you would like to have sex with in each country that it is not worthwhile to comment on any particular country. there are a number of game-plans that i follow, to reduce the risk. weigh up the risks of each particular type of girl. for instance, i only accept uncovered bj from girls who use mouthwash before doing it and when i am reasonably sure that they otherwise take care. so you may find that an uncovered bj in a bj place in bangkok might have less of a chance of passing on infection than the same from a semipro freelancer even though the latter probably has given far fewer bjs than the bj bargirl. many providers in bangkok massage places now require covered bj because the girls lose days off work getting rid of the infection.

for instance, i never got any infections from all the uncovered bjs i had in various countries from different providers until i got a dose from a massage girl. it was a small massage shop in manila which only had one or 2 providers. the girl was probably giving head all day to many customers but did not prepare before or after with antiseptic mouthwash.

although i invariably rubber up for fs along the lines set out above, you may decide that you are happy with a higher risk profile, as they say in the insurance business. for instance, you may decide that you need to get to know the girl first before barebacking, whether she is a pro or no. i used to have that attitude too until experience told me that it might not be a good plan for me. for example, i met a pro in bangkok that i got to know very well. she was working in a soapy place and i used to pay a visit most afternoons. she was that good. eventually she offered bareback and she gave me a dose. a year later and she had gotten out of the business and was working in a relative's shop that was opened 6 months before. i barebacked her and got yet another dose! looking back, i am fairly sure that all along she had been a fl on the side.

some working girls just do not bother clearing up stds and they get used to having the symptoms. if the std makes her dry, she will use lub, if it gives her a smell, she will douche or use some stuff to make her smell better for work.

some men have stds for a long time but have little or no symptoms and continue to do bareback. for them, there is no problem, they think. but carrying around untreated stds is not a good idea as they can have long-term medical effects and leave you open to other infections, including hiv. in addition, you are passing on infections to others. in the case of pros, they may develop symptoms that prevent them from working and they do not have access to the high quality medical care or knowledge. even if one is unmoved by that ethical argument, you should consider the following thought. the more girls who get stds, the more likely they are to either be off work or to provide a bad quality service (too dry, to painful, bad smell) not to mention that they can pass on the infection to fellow mongerers. std prevalence may also frighten off some girls from either getting into the market or may encourage them to leave the market altogether. that means that the market in terms of numbers of girls available gets smaller and the prices rise as demand is likely to be constant over time. if you agree with the argument, it means that barebacking leads to higher prices and lower numbers of available providers.

in my opinion, we are fooling ourselves if we think there is a location out there where it is safe to bareback pros or semi-pros. and, imho, based on personal experience uncovered bj should be used with caution. having said that, my impression is that certain countries women are much more likely to bareback in any circumstances. for example, for obvious and non-obvious cultural and social reasons, girls from the philippines are inclined to do it without a condom whereas thais are less likely. my experience tells me that girls in the philippines are much more likely to get pregnant and to get stds than thai girls (population stats tell the first story and i know people who worked in philippine maternity wards who could tell me that large numbers of women arriving to give birth had ongoing stds). but this does not mean that the girl you pick from a bar in angeles has a more risky profile than the girl in a bar in bangkok.

barebacking working girls is risky, perhaps more risky in some african countries than in some european countries but that does not help you if the risk of barebacking in european countries is already unacceptably risky for you. it is a bit like saying that smoking 80 cigarettes a day is more risky than smoking 50. the 50 a day habit could do you in anyway.

if you really must bareback a pro (or even a non-pro you don't know well) , a way to reduce risks is to find a suitable candidate you would like to spend some extended time with, get her tested by a doc that she does not know (cannot manipulate) and then take her to a location where she does not know people (and is less likely to have a boyfriend stashed away somewhere whom she can be shagging during those so-called trips to the market). you still are not going to be completely risk free because hiv takes weeks to show up in the blood and it is possible, though unlikely, that she caught the virus in those few weeks before you met her. but your chances of an infection are very unlikely. now all you have to do is to make sure she does not get pregnant. for me, so much easier to slip on a condom! and there are condoms that are so lightweight and strong that it really feels that you have nothing on and the risk of tearing is much lower. and the girl does not get pregnant too!

the only two times i got an std while wearing a condom was when the girl was too dry and the condom broke. actually in one case, without my knowledge the girl had put baby oil on the condom which reacted with the condom (if you don't believe me, put a latex condom into baby oil and see what happens). that is why i always try have a tube of water based lube with me (actually feminine lubricant is better. there is a brand but i forget the name but it is a small flat bottle and fits in your pocket too).

all of the above is my personal opinion which you can treat as overly cautious, well-considered or even silly. it is not intended to criticize the actions or non-actions of others. i merely have set out my stall for you to browse or even to buy, if indeed you happen to agree with me. happy mongering in 2013!

[Manny51]

Hello everyone!

I wanted to throw out a question for review. I originally posted this on the 'Best Countries for STR' but didn't get a lot of responses. It occurred to me that the 'Safe Sex' section is probably more appropriate, so I want to post it here.

I know that users on the forum often rate hobbying destinations for things like value and quality GFE, but I wanted to get some ideas about safe sex. I have visited places where people are 'tested' like Curacao, as well as more free-for-all places like Thailand. I have long been curious about going to the Phillipines, but have been somewhat apprehensive about, what appears to be, the high prevalence of STDs. The PI forums seem to always be discussing STDs. I haven't figured out why, but it seems to me that PI tends to draw visitors who insist on going bareback. I haven't traveled that much, but I've traveled enough to realize that countries are different, with different safe sex laws (or lack thereof) , what's legal and whats not, as well as drawing different types of tourist crowds. I realize through reading the forums that there are also different types of hobbyists; those who prefer / insist on the quality of bareback sex, versus those who are more cautious, safe sex oriented and always use protection. I am of the latter group.

I understand that we are all adults here, and that we each make our own choices. I understand that nothing is risk free, and that protection should be encouraged. But it seems to me that there are definitely countries with different levels of risk. For example, I have no idea why someone would want to risk having fun in sub-saharan Africa.

Therefore I ask to those in our community who are experienced and well traveled, what destinations are generally the safest in regards to STDs? Also, which destinations generally entail more risk?

I imagine that some people would answer this question with a response something like, increased cautionary measures generally result in decreased satisfaction. Yes it is a trade off. But satisfaction is complex. It is also affected by factors such as how attractive she is, GFE, enthusiasm in the sack, and cost, and not just whether you are wearing a rubber or not. Therefore, I would also ask which destination offer the best ratio of satisfaction / risk?

Please elaborate on your reasons as much as possible. Cheers!

[John Dough]

the key to avoiding std's is proper hygiene. i kid you not, that sloshing a little bit of clorox in a cup of water and flushing out the ureter, before and after p4p, will (prevent transmission of) std's. i do it, even when the girl makes me wear a rubber.

one can protect the base of their cock (that isn't covered by a condom) by washing with clorox solution. i've done it this way since december 1999, and have never caught anything other than (lice).

i never have p4p without immediate access to bathing. home turf or my motel room with my valuables and food stashed have proven to always work out the best. whether condom usage is insisted upon or not, i thoroughly clean up afterwards.

i'm a big fan of bare back heterosexual intercourse for my pleasure and inspiration in life; i can't feel anything through a rubber. i've gone bare with about 90% of the dates, i've been on.

i decided to test chlorine bleach on a plantar wart on the bottom of my foot. i've tried other "home remedies" that all failed. i put a drop of undiluted bleach on the wart and let it soak in. i did this two days in a row. a few days later, the wart didn't cause pain anymore when i stepped on it. after a few weeks the old skin peeled off and new skin grew in where the wart had been. success at last.

another time i was doing laundry with bleach and got my hands in the chlorinated water. i noticed my hands smelled like bleach for several hours afterwards. it seems the chlorine is absorbed into the skin. perhaps this justifies using bleach beforehand, since it will form a protective layer in the skin. using it again afterwards will sandwich any microbes between two layers of potent microbicide.

[Nvslim]

i thought this was interesting. prostitution moves into the technology age.

cellphones reshape prostitution in india, and complicate efforts to

prevent aids.

by gardiner harris.

november 24, 2012.

mumbai, india. millions once bought sex in the narrow alleys of

kamathipura, a vast red-light district here. but prostitutes with

inexpensive mobile phones are luring customers elsewhere, and that is

endangering the astonishing progress india has made against aids.

indeed, the recent closings of hundreds of ancient brothels, while

something of an economic victory for prostitutes, may one day cost

them, and many others, their lives.

"the place where sex happens turns out to be an important h. i. v.

prevention point," said saggurti niranjan, program associate of the

population council."and when we don't know where that is, we can't

help stop the transmission."

cellphones, those tiny gateways to modernity, have recently allowed

prostitutes to shed the shackles of brothel madams and strike out on

their own. but that independence has made prostitutes far harder for

government and safe-sex counselors to trace. and without the advice

and free condoms those counselors provide, prostitutes and their

customers are returning to dangerous ways.

studies show that prostitutes who rely on cellphones are more

susceptible to h. i. v. because they are far less likely than their

brothel-based peers to require their clients to wear condoms.

in interviews, prostitutes said they had surrendered some control in

the bedroom in exchange for far more control over their incomes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/wo...ids-fight.html

sorry, auto formatting is fucking up the quote, straightened it out once.

[Pete Benetar]

Or not.

Sorry. Couldn't help it.

ROFLMAO. Now THAT kind of pictorial editing is truly a thing of gifted art. Maybe if I ever get it tattoo'd I'll use your pic as a model.

[WestCoast1]

Or not.

Sorry. Couldn't help it.