Safe Sex and Sex Related Discussions in Thailand

[QUOTE=The Traveler]

....
IMHO there is only one way to play the game, expect all girls to bear the same risk and due to that be as careful as you can and treat them all the same.[/QUOTE]

We are talking about risk assessment and probability here, but some seem to have their problems with it. As the risk is never 0% and also not 100%, however we calculate it we all mongers take the risk with every girl we take and this includes the Traveler as well.

We can debate endless using the recently published figure if 10,8% aids infection under the sex workers. As I wrote previously it may be 15% at beergarden (or any other number every individual may judge himself) and 6% at the gogo’s and probably still 4% with The Travelers girls selection.

So why to kick Giotto when he is talking about probability, everyone including The Traveler does the same thing.

Consequent at all is only to stay at home and not at all go to Thailand and have contact with any female (regardless engaged in of P4P, or "good girl") there. The traveler is sitting in the glas house himself, as 1 sex act can kill him as anybody of us out there having any females contact as all risks are never 0%.

So why endless debating about the detailed percentage and who gives good and bad advise, when all of us frequent or occasionally doing sex with Thai women take a 'calculated' risk (with our own equation for this 'calculation'), which includes again The Traveler, who has nothing more then just a different calculation to minimize (but never eliminate) his risk.

Even our member Opebo does his risk asessment and considers his barebeck anal shots with his rock bottom candidates low risk, according to his own equasion. So we can see the bandwidth of such individual risk assessment.

Regards

Brain666

[QUOTE=Brain666]... when all of us frequent or occasionally doing sex with Thai women take a 'calculated' risk (with our own equation for this 'calculation'), which includes again The Traveler, who has nothing more then just a different calculation to minimize (but never eliminate) his risk. ...
[/QUOTE]Brain666,

That is the point! I think most of us would definitely second The Travelers final statement - maximum protection, be as careful as you can be.

But the problem is that it is very easy to talk and write about it - and much more difficult to act this way, when you get carried away during a session. We are all human.

The experience I have is that a huge majority of men I spoke to admitted that they already had unprotected intercourse with a P4P girl. To only list all possible risk factors should be an eyeopener. And - as I know today - I even missed a lot of them.


Giotto

[QUOTE=Giotto]
Regarding younger girls: I don't really think that we have to discuss that, too. It is a question of logic. Older girls went through the same life period as young girls, and the time period they are older. Logically that can only add risk, but not reduce it. They furthermore lived in a time when the knowledge about HIV was limited - that adds additional risks, too.

I stick to exactly what I wrote in my report. It is my opinion, and you are entitled to have a different one.[/QUOTE]

Most of us applaud Giotto's good intentions in making his "risk assessment" post. But bad advice is bad advice.

My take is that The Traveler has (quite rightly) pointed out some obvious errors in Giotto's strategy and Giotto has overreacted to that assessment of [i]his[/i] assessment, taking it as a personal attack (and the usual gang of fanboys jumped in, of course, to defend Giotto's honour and attack The Traveler).

Another glaring error, presented as logic: The statement that older prostitutes go through the same "life period" as younger prostitutes. Many of the older prostitutes came into the game at a relatively late age, when their Thai husbands dumped them and left they and their kids 'up Shit Creek without a paddle'.

[QUOTE=Terry Terrier]Most of us applaud Giotto's good intentions in making his "risk assessment" post. But bad advice is bad advice.

My take is that The Traveler has (quite rightly) pointed out some obvious errors in Giotto's risk assessment strategy and Giotto has overreacted to that assessment of [i]his[/i] assessment, taking it as a personal attack (and the usual gang of fanboys jumped in, of course, to defend Giotto's honour and attack The Traveler).

Another glaring error, presented as logic: The statement that older prostitutes go through the same "life period" as younger prostitutes. Many of the older prostitutes came into the game at a relatively late age, when their Thai husbands dumped them and left they and their kids 'up shit creek without a paddle'.[/QUOTE]Terry Terrier,

I really don't know what again the "fanboys" have to do with all that. Shall I now create a virtual "Anti-Fanboys allliance" ? Is that somehow important for the real issue? It is getting more and more obvious for me that some readers out there did not really understand my post about risk assessment up to now.

You are right with one issue, I don't let this risk assessment post problem so easily go, BECAUSE HIV/AIDS is such an important problem, and BECAUSE I really don't want to give wrong advice. But up to now none of your arguments has changed anything in my views. If somebody believes that the fact that I did not discuss the combination of two risk factors makes the risk assessment report erroneous - then he has not understood it! ALL risk factors are combined in the real world!

Your argumentation regarding the possible late entry of older women into the business can fit for some of those ladies, but for sure it does not change the general logic of the age evaluation. It is pure speculation as long as you cannot find out for sure how long a girl is really in the business. Age is something you can find out. It is about RISK ASSESSMENT!

But if you can find this out - then the risk assessment should be changed to a "Duration of Work" factor instead of the "age". That would be more accurate then. I leave it to you and everybody out there to decide for himself in a specific situation whether this is possible or not.

If you people have sex with a full-body condom - fine with me, and highly appreciated. Then you will NOT endanger others, and do good for all participants. I simply don't believe it, I like to have a realistic approach to problems like this. I like to look at the human aspects and weaknesses in such a discussion.

That's it now for me, if somebody wants to discuss this further or has questions reg. my "bad advice" please PM me. I am not willing to discuss this important problem on this irresponsible level embedded in "Fanboys" forum politics and accusations of overreacting.



Giotto

[QUOTE=Giotto]That's it now for me, if somebody wants to discuss this further or has questions reg. my "bad advice" please PM me. I am not willing to discuss this important problem on this irresponsible level embedded in "Fanboys" forum politics and accusations of overreacting. [/QUOTE]

Neither am I, and it's about time you started discouraging your fanboys from giving you their silly, unconditional support. And it's also about time you stopped overreacting and behaving like a prize-winning drama queen in response to legitimate (and accurate) corrections of your assessments. But these two issues are closely linked, if we're being frank, aren't they G?

I will PM you in a couple of days (I'm busy for a day or two), because my replies will require more attention to such a serious issue being raised in such a prima donna style here than that required for the usual BS and fanboy support.

TT (awaiting the sychophantic Giotto's Club 'fanboy' jokes from the fanboys :D)

[Quote=Brain666]...Even our member Opebo does his risk asessment and considers his barebeck anal shots with his rock bottom candidates low risk, according to his own equasion. So we can see the bandwidth of such individual risk assessment...[/QUOTE]The problem with the member whose name I don't even want to put into my mouth is that he is cheating the girls into a possible infection. If Pete's default assumption is that everyone has a blood infection, then one must assume such individuals still much more likely to be infected. And it seems even Jackson doesn't care that criminal acts are promoted here. Very sad.
Tiger

[QUOTE=Tiger 1]The problem with the member whose name I don't even want to put into my mouth is that he is cheating the girls into a possible infection... it seems even Jackson doesn't care that criminal acts are promoted here. Very sad.
Tiger[/QUOTE]

Please explain how this is 'cheating', or how it is criminal. One does not make any false representations - in fact one makes no representations at all. One simply has sex. As far as I know, the act of sex sans condom is not illegal in any jurisdiction, but perhaps that would be a good policy goal for a fan of the Police State to pursue, Tiger.

This whole thread should be void!

[QUOTE=Opebo]Please explain how this is 'cheating', or how it is criminal. One does not make any false representations - in fact one makes no representations at all. One simply has sex. As far as I know, the act of sex sans condom is not illegal in any jurisdiction, but perhaps that would be a good policy goal for a fan of the Police State to pursue, Tiger.[/QUOTE]

Well you said any JURISDICTION (so guess that means anywhere in the world). In which case I can assure you that comment is false, in Australia for one it is illegal in most if not all states to have unprotected paid sex. How anyone would police it, prove it or be convicted of it I don't know but that is the law.

As for the issue at hand it is more one of consent. If a girl consents to BB and thats what you want fill your boots to your hearts consent, that is one for the morals police.

But if a girl, as like the one you posted about asks for a condom and you try methods to deliberatly break it or otherwise conjoule her into not using one then you are a low life. You are the one making a false representation as in that case you would have agreed to the terms the girl offered and choose methods to break that term. That is wrong and I cannot see one sensable or sane argument that could be to the contrary.

At the end of the day if the girl is providing something you don't want (ie the use of a condom) then she is not the girl for you. You seem to have no problem getting it else where so good luck to you, but breaking a condom or doing something else is just shameful.

[QUOTE=Jc373]Well you said any JURISDICTION (so guess that means anywhere in the world). In which case I can assure you that comment is false, in Australia for one it is illegal in most if not all states to have unprotected paid sex. How anyone would police it, prove it or be convicted of it I don't know but that is the law.

As for the issue at hand it is more one of consent. If a girl consents to BB and thats what you want fill your boots to your hearts consent, that is one for the morals police.

But if a girl, as like the one you posted about asks for a condom and you try methods to deliberatly break it or otherwise conjoule her into not using one then you are a low life. You are the one making a false representation as in that case you would have agreed to the terms the girl offered and choose methods to break that term. That is wrong and I cannot see one sensable or sane argument that could be to the contrary.

At the end of the day if the girl is providing something you don't want (ie the use of a condom) then she is not the girl for you. You seem to have no problem getting it else where so good luck to you, but breaking a condom or doing something else is just shameful.[/QUOTE]

Bit like going to the doctor for an injection when he tells you it is a brand new syringe and a brand new needle, only it isn't!

[QUOTE=Jc373]At the end of the day if the girl is providing something you don't want (ie the use of a condom) then she is not the girl for you. You seem to have no problem getting it else where so good luck to you, but breaking a condom or doing something else is just shameful.[/QUOTE]

Point well taken, Jc, and I do agree with you. The reason I related that story was it was the only time I have ever attempted that (it failed). I definitely prefer the more forthright method. You are quite correct that I do not find it particularly difficult to get openly, and that has been, and will be, my policy.

In the case in point it is interesting to note that the girl redily agreed to the bareback sex for an extra 500 baht, and also that her vagina had the distinctive 'fishy' smell - a telltale sign of rotting sperm. So.. it can hardly be argued that I was greatly altering her ordinary practice.

i have many things to say, but jackson has a policy on abusing another member.

so i will say it as politely as i can.

you complete idiot, setting out to purposely break a condom is one of the stupidest things i have ever heard. it is men like you that give the decent clients a bad name. as a working girl i laugh at your ignorance stupidity and totally disregard for your own and your partners safety.

i realise that some working girls are stupid enough to offer this service but god dam it man why would you.

the low level of your intelligence astounds and horrifies me. although somehow i get the feeling that you think this behaviour is amusing and i'll give you that there are plenty of men out there who lack the self confidence and feel that behaving like an ass in the room with a provider makes them more of a man. newsflash, it just makes you look like a sad pathethic man who is incapable of getting erect.

always remember that even wgs have brains and they do have opinions and you would be surprised how tight the wgs grapevine is, you might find yourself in masturbation heaven one day, cause no one will touch it.

good luck, i suppose the one consolation is eventually your dick will go green and drop off. after all thailand is not known for its clean working girls either.

[QUOTE=Opebo]
In the case in point it is interesting to note that the girl redily agreed to the bareback sex for an extra 500 baht, and also that her vagina had the distinctive 'fishy' smell - a telltale sign of rotting sperm. So.. it can hardly be argued that I was greatly altering her ordinary practice.[/QUOTE]

You astound me! You want to put your dick in a pussy filled with rotting sperm? If this isn't disgusting, I wonder what is. But hey, each to his own heaven.

[QUOTE=Opebo]
In the case in point it is interesting to note that the girl redily agreed to the bareback sex for an extra 500 baht, and also that her vagina had the distinctive [size=+1]'fishy' smell - a telltale sign of rotting sperm.[/size] So.. it can hardly be argued that I was greatly altering her ordinary practice.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Opebo] Interestingly, the girl suffered from the fishy-**** smell so common among american providers, but so rare in Thailand. I have noted in my travels that [size=+1]it is usually the condom-pushers who have this smell,[/size] while the girls who hop on bareback without even the mention of a condom are invariably clean and smell great.
[/QUOTE]
Which one is it Opebo?
in one post, you talk about a fishy smell, which according to you, equals rotting sperm. (I have always known thai women to be clean to a fault), in another post, you talk about the fishy smell, which equals condom pushers.

Make up your mind, but regardless of which one it is, your are a fucking idiot, and a complete low life, for trying to intentionally break a condom. If only I had a picture of you, and I knew somehow of a Thai board that all providers read, I would post your photo, and warn all to stay away.
As Sasha Coffee says, masturbation heaven is where you belong.

[QUOTE=Giotto]The Traveler,

I did not respond to your question because I am too polite.

The question is not very clever. Just check out what a decision matrix is, and then combine the factors, based on your personal evaluation of each single risk factor. Then you get the combination of the risk factors, and how you personally deal with it.

If you need further information I will explain to you what a decision matrix is, but I think it does not belong here.

Regarding younger girls: I don't really think that we have to discuss that, too. It is a question of logic. Older girls went through the same life period as young girls, and the time period they are older. Logically that can only add risk, but not reduce it. They furthermore lived in a time when the knowledge about HIV was limited - that adds additional risks, too.

I stick to exactly what I wrote in my report. It is my opinion, and you are entitled to have a different one.

Giotto[/QUOTE]
Giotto,

please stick to the issue, don't fall back into old habits, there is no need to get personal and being condescending.
BTW, that's what Terry is complaining about.

So why you do still avoid to give a clear answer ?
You mentioned several attributes and the risk attached to them due to YOUR risk assesment. Sadly you didn't give us any information which attribute contains the higher risk. That's what my question was aiming for.
It shows your dilemma that your rules are worthless because the whole issue is far too complex. All those attributes can be combined endlessly (plus many many others not mentioned) and who can really claim to be able to assess or even estimate the actual risks involved.

Any attempt to do that - like you did with your risk assessment - is a lost cause. By sticking to it, you do lie to yourself which is much worse than lying to others.

So my question still stands : who bears the bigger risk, an old gogo girl or a young bar girl ?
I also kindly ask you to explain your answer/decision.


P.S. Waste a second and think about what Pete said. Guess why professionals like policemen, medical personal and first aid workers have certain rules of behaviour when approaching unknown people with an unknown health status. Those professionals have to deal with unknown people, we do it by choice, but that doesn't mean that we should unnecessarily increase our risk just because we BELIEVE or ASSUME something about those people.