General Info

This woman is a good journalist, and addresses sex topics with wonderful frankness.

[url]http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/25884-unprotected-anal-sex[/url]

[QUOTE=Red Kilt; 1445586]This woman is a good journalist, and addresses sex topics with wonderful frankness.

[url]http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/25884-unprotected-anal-sex[/url][/QUOTE]I like her candor, and much of what she argues parallels both the tone and findings from Elizabeth Pisani, whose book on HIV / AIDs, *The Wisdom of Wh...s**, has been out since 2008:

Pisani's HIV field research in Southeast Asia also challenges the "clean models" (my word, not hers) epidemiological work that has studied HIV in the developing world, specifically because epidemiologists have generally failed to burrow into the lives and environments of sex workers and intravenous drug users. I have no doubt that anal sex is under-appreciated among Pinoys, in part because of discomfort and denial around the topic, but I think there is one caution we might observe about this rappler column. It is the idea that research that has used well worn Western epidemiological methods in Canada and elsewhere in the industrialized world necessarily is generalizable to the Philippines.

I had pasted three hotlinks here but they didn't work, presumably because they came from bing, which is a real piece of crap. If you're interested browse for Elizabeth Pisani on your own.

[QUOTE=Gangles; 1445663]At last some validating information that supports my earlier posts about barebacking in the Phils and its relationship to HIV.

G[/QUOTE]Barebacking anywhere carries risks Gangles not just in the Philippines. Africa for instance has huge HIV issues.

Is just because your (RK and G) cricket team is currently getting a battering by the Poms that you like to find such morbid (but interesting all the same) articles? Maybe it cheers you up LOL (oh why are there no smileys anymore he asks).

[QUOTE=Gangles;1445663]At last some validating information that supports my earlier posts about barebacking[/QUOTE]On methods in the CATIE analysis provided by the author:

"Furthermore, a person does not always know the HIV status of their partner (s). For this reason, researchers usually enroll HIV-negate individuals who are in stable relationships with an HIV-positive partner (also known as serodiscordant couples). Researchers can then conclude that any unprotected sex reported by a study participant counts as an exposure to HIV."

[url]http://www.catie.ca/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv[/url]

So, in another way of considering, if your risk of contracting HIV on an uncovered vaginal tap is 0. 04% or 1:2500 on a 100% positive partner pop, then what would it be for the general pop of young pinays (let's be liberal, I think, and just say HIV is 5% in the PI which I don't think it is but just sayin). Here your risk on an uncovered tap in the "general population" might be nearer 1:50, 000.

Nobody knows what the actual numbers are but I'm certain if the original authors were straight up they would be concede they might be off by orders of magnitude. Ironically, post date all of this surveyed data and CDC et al has proven that if your mate IS positive on HIV, make sure he or she is on retrovirals and then you can boink away sans cover and NEVER contract HIV (at least from your partner).

Either way, I think you're still waiting for your validation.

I agree that barebacking carries risk.

But so does using the roads. The number of fatalities on Australian roads per year is a thousand times the number of fatalities from AIDS contracted through heterosexual sex. Yet Australians still take the risk. Even though it is relatively high.

The figures for Australia published by the government and regularly trumpeted by the nay-sayers is about 1100 new reported cases of HIV per year. This is then quoted widely to berate heterosexual couples to use condoms to be safe. But if you drill down, and deduct the number of those who are homosexual, and the number of intravenous drug users, then the number is about 5.

The population of Australia is a bit over 20 million, but lets round it to 20 mill. That means that about 10 million are sexually active, that is. 5 million couples. The rate of sexual activity in Australia is about 2 fucks per month, say 25 per year. So for 5 million coup[les, at 25 per year, is 125 million fucks per year in the country. That is, an infection rate of 5 in 125 million. This is less than negligible.

What is not available is how many of the 5 reported infected heterosexuals are barebacking anal.

You are right to raise the issue of Africa. However, the elephant in the room in all of the programs for AIDS prevention in Africa is that anal sex is the traditional method of contraception. Because nobody will openly speak about this in donor country discussions and strategy planning, the practice has not changed, and the infection rates remain high.

If you actually look at international tables for infection rates, the USA is right up there at the top. And therefore it is among the most dangerous countries in the world for barebacking. Interesting.

G

[QUOTE=Wicked Roger; 1445741]Barebacking anywhere carries risks Gangles not just in the Philippines. Africa for instance has huge HIV issues.

Is just because your (RK and G) cricket team is currently getting a battering by the Poms that you like to find such morbid (but interesting all the same) articles? Maybe it cheers you up LOL (oh why are there no smileys anymore he asks).[/QUOTE]

Pete Benetar posted an interesting guide to prevention on infection with STI quite some time ago.

I did not fully understand it, so I printed it, and took it to my doc to explain.

He was very reluctant to do so, but I dragged it out of him, and subsequently verified it.

There are 2 forms of STI. Those that are bacterian and those that are viral.

You can protect yourself from the bacterial forms (including chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea) by taking a combination of doxycyclin, and amoxycillin. I now take these when I am mongering.

Among the viral forms, you can be vaccinated against Hepatitis A and B. I have now had this done.

This combination greatly reduces the risk of contracting STI by barebacking.

Yet this information is never published by government, nor by the medical profession in my country.

I wonder why?

PB, would you like to comment? Did I get it right?

G

[QUOTE=Pete Benetar; 1445933]On methods in the CATIE analysis provided by the author:

"Furthermore, a person does not always know the HIV status of their partner (s). For this reason, researchers usually enroll HIV-negate individuals who are in stable relationships with an HIV-positive partner (also known as serodiscordant couples). Researchers can then conclude that any unprotected sex reported by a study participant counts as an exposure to HIV."

[url]http://www.catie.ca/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv[/url]

So, in another way of considering, if your risk of contracting HIV on an uncovered vaginal tap is 0. 04% or 1:2500 on a 100% positive partner pop, then what would it be for the general pop of young pinays (let's be liberal, I think, and just say HIV is 5% in the PI which I don't think it is but just sayin). Here your risk on an uncovered tap in the "general population" might be nearer 1:50, 000...[/QUOTE]

Here is a simple statistical research project which punters can undertake for themselves.

Go back through all on the Photo Galleries in ISG.

Whenever the guy's cock is visible, and he is in vaginal or anal sex, make a count of those that are covered and those that are uncovered.

Now this is a biased sample, in that the number of P4P are much higher than in the general population. However, it will give a reasonable representation of punters attitude to covered vs uncovered sex.

G

[QUOTE=Pete Benetar; 1445933]On methods in the CATIE analysis provided by the author:

"Furthermore, a person does not always know the HIV status of their partner (s). For this reason, researchers usually enroll HIV-negate individuals who are in stable relationships with an HIV-positive partner (also known as serodiscordant couples). Researchers can then conclude that any unprotected sex reported by a study participant counts as an exposure to HIV."

[url]http://www.catie.ca/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv[/url]

So, in another way of considering, if your risk of contracting HIV on an uncovered vaginal tap is 0. 04% or 1:2500 on a 100% positive partner pop, then what would it be for the general pop of young pinays (let's be liberal, I think, and just say HIV is 5% in the PI which I don't think it is but just sayin). Here your risk on an uncovered tap in the "general population" might be nearer 1:50, 000...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Gangles; 1445953]Yet this information is never published by government, nor by the medical profession in my country.

I wonder why?

PB, would you like to comment? Did I get it right?

G[/QUOTE]Yes, largely IMO you got it right G. The elephant in the room is liberation of our anatomy, LOL. Every schlong in the western world is bombarded and indoctrinated into stifling our manhood. Including (especially?) MDs. Sure, there is very good public health policy in using covers vis a vis limiting the bacterial and protozoan bugs but there are ways around that as you have educated yourself (I only would suggest you do this SHORT term however as chronic usage of antibiotics is NOT without it's own set of risks and complications).

The HIV thing, IMO and seemingly corroborated by the CATIA data, is a complete ballyhoo and has / had its place in limiting transmission of HIV for the boy toys, but femi nazis have conflagrated this topic with great effect.

[QUOTE=Gangles;1445949]The rate of sexual activity in Australia is about 2 fucks per month, say 25 per year. G[/QUOTE]Gee, as low as that? I guess that excludes the sheep fucks!

But interesting analysis Gangles.

KongKing

Montana in not is Ozzy Country.

[QUOTE=KongKing; 1446187]Gee, as low as that? I guess that excludes the sheep fucks!

But interesting analysis Gangles.

KongKing[/QUOTE]

In my situation I always use a condom even when the girls offers not too. I really don't want any baggage coming home with me.

And certainly don't want to add my DNA to the pool of 100, 000, 000. While I accept I have good DNA, spreading my DNA does carry the risk for supporting a future baby and education. I'd prefer that it be a cost of choice.

[QUOTE=Fifty Pesos;1446686]and they even traveled to Boracay together (at my expense).[/QUOTE]Can you elaborate your post so that the readers can understand what you are on about?

[QUOTE=Bionicman;1446721]Can you elaborate your post so that the readers can understand what you are on about?[/QUOTE]Easy, our friend cut and paste-info from Harry the Horse.

Not our friends words, but HTH's words.

[blue][Unsafe Sex Bragging deleted by Admin][/blue]

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was edited in accordance with the Forum's Posting Guidelines prohibiting the posting of reports inquiring or bragging about [u]Avoiding Safe Sex Practices[/u]. Please read [url="http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/custompages.php?pageid=custompages_forumrules"]the Forum s & Posting Guidelines[/url] for more information. [i]Thanks![/i][/blue]

[QUOTE=OkiCali1011;1447434]I noticed in the picture forum that main of you don't use condoms. HoW do you not get STD or HIV? Are these girl really that clean?[/QUOTE]Oh, most here do the well proven method of 'withdrawal' whereby, before climax, into touch with the germs, withdraws. I think so.

That's what I do and it is working fine so far. You should try it. Or you can simply go Mary Palmer.

Now, if you do Anal, I don't know.