Safe Sex and Sex Related Discussions in Thailand

[QUOTE=PinkPearl]For example, to illustrate by a similar example, if you've ever recieved a balls massage from a lady's hand wearing a latex medical glove, it feels the same as without the glove.[/QUOTE]Also sometimes I find that the condom slips off inside the woman during genital intercourse and I do not realize it till I check later, yet the feeling does not improve without the condom.

In addition to the latex glove example above, this is another proof that the feeling with the condom on can be just as good as going bareback.

[QUOTE=Lover Boy #2]Disagree on #2.....the condom is actually tighter than your dick....making it thinner.....unless you have a tiny dick and can use 0.02 and 0.05 millimetres?[/QUOTE]I see your point. Though I suppose as the penis expands during intercourse it may actually stretch the condom. Of course this probably doesn't apply to those who last only 2 minutes. Lube inside the condom, BTW, may be an additional width factor to the condom itself.

I didn't pick up Herpes on my last visit (most likely in Pattaya or BKK).. but seemed to have picked up a strain of HPV which has manifested in small warts around the pubic area. (About 2 months later) And for the record I do use condo's.. though obviously they don't cover the whole area.

Some tips: do no shave or irritate the area which spreads it.

One doc put me onto Aldara, which is expensive ($100 a pop) and did nothing.. don't recommend. I'm now trying out Condyline which is apparently quite effective, though more abrasive.


[QUOTE=Brasco]Well, you must be aware that bargirls in Pattaya for example, have every night sex with at least one guy, thats the way how they make money on living, so there is pretty big possibility you can catch something from oral sex, or something even worse if the condom breaks.[/QUOTE]

I just discovered this thread, which is fascinating. I see that a few of the most knowledgeable posters have not been "active" here for several months, but I nevertheless hope a few people with specialized knowledge can help with some answers.

There seems to be tremendous confusion. I called 3-4 hotlines, including the gay HIV hotline and the counselors in all of them knew very little. Within 5 minutes, I saw they had no idea. The guy at the gay hotline said it was equally dangerous to be the "top" or the "bottom" of a gay sex couple or to have vaginal or anal sex, but could cite no sources. They definitely want to scare you but seem to have very little knowledge, which of course does not mean that we should not be scared, but I would like to know the facts as much as it is possible.

It seems that a heterosexual man who sero-converts positive is likely to first catch something else and then HIV. it could actually be in the same sex act--you could catch chlamydia, for example, and the irritation int he urethra could then give HIV an opening.

It seems very strange that so few famous people have caught HIV. Charlie Sheen, Wilt Chamberlain, etc... the list of heterosexual males with HIV is rather short. In the porn world, there have only been a few "outbreaks" and none since Darren James. Some say that it is not a coincidence that James caught HIV in another country--that HIV in the USA is harder to spread heterosexually than HIV (or a certain sub-strain of it) in certain other countries, such as Thailand. But remember----please do not fight---I just want comments that can help me understand the actual situation, preferably with some sort of citation to the medical literature (I am not a doctor but I can read).

Here are my questions/comments. I do not want to start any fighting---I am strictly looking for useful information----primarily from people with medical/biological training.

1. It seems the PCR test for HIV is generally accurate 12 days after potential exposure and maybe as soon as 72 hours. I see that someone has gotten that test for $160 in California. why is it so hard to find a place to do that test? Admittedly, it would be expensive but many of us would be willing to spend the money for a medium term gfe and maybe even for a 1 night stand. Of course you would have to quarantine her for 12 days or take some chance but it is a lot better than the Eliza test with a 6-12 week window, which makes it virtually useless. Yet the PCR test is not available in mos places and so you cannot use what could be an effecive method of screening partners which would allow you to have sex without a condom without worrying (too much) about HIV. Am I correct?

2. There is Orasure, which allows you to test saliva in 20 minutes. Why is it impossible to get this thing? apparently, the authorities are afraid people will freak out if they get a positive result, which could be a false positive, and might kill themselves. But it would seem that the public interest in giving people some tool to reduce their risk would override this concern. Of course, the 6-12 week window makes this test of limited value, but it would still be of considerable use oin many situations. Yet it is unavailable. Am I correct?

3. There is a much higher risk in Thailand than the Philippines because there is more of a certain type of sub-type of HIV in Thailand. True or false?

4. If you do not know the HIV status of a girl, it does not matter if you sleep with her every night or switch girls because either way if you are not using a condom you could be exposing yourself to HIV. 15 sex acts with 1 girl of unknown status is the same risk as 15 sex acts with 15 girls of unknown risk. True or untrue?

5. Wearing a condom on the end of your penis would reduce HIV risk a real lot because the virus almost always enters the male's body through the urithra. True or false?

I am mostly interested in the first 3 questions. Thank you!

[QUOTE=Cuba Tourist]
3. There is a much higher risk in Thailand than the Philippines because there is more of a certain type of sub-type of HIV in Thailand. True or false?[/QUOTE]

I have read that the sub-type of HIV in certain Asian countries...not only Thailand (but mainly in Thailand) is more transmissable through hetero sex because it seems to permeate the mucosa in a more effective way than the type of HIV found in the West. I am not sure this is true, because of all the world travel going on, it would seem that one type would spread as fast as another.

[QUOTE=PinkPearl]I disagree. For example, to illustrate by a similar example, if you've ever recieved a balls massage from a lady's hand wearing a latex medical glove, it feels the same as without the glove.

Tip #1. Try putting a few drops of lube on the inside head of the condom.

Tip #2. The condom adds width which can make it tighter inside the lady, and consequently actually improve the sensation.

Tip #3. Getting a genital massage, whether from her tongue mouth or hands, for an hour before condom intercourse, will result in the feeling being just as good or better than w/o a condom.

But I suppose #3 illustrates a key problem with most of you wankers, that you cannot last more than 5 minutes, and would have already cum before the sex began.[/QUOTE]
Different strokes for different folks. If that works, then more power to you. Maybe you jerk off too much & lost sensation. The raw feeling of a wet juicy pussy feels way better than any condom trick. To me, BBBJ is feels much better than a cbj, but the feeling of raw intercourse is just off the hook!

[QUOTE=Cuba Tourist]
I just discovered this thread, which is fascinating. I see that a few of the most knowledgeable posters have not been "active" here for several months, but I nevertheless hope a few people with specialized knowledge can help with some answers. There seems to be tremendous confusion. [/QUOTE]

Indeed. Most people who are supposed to inform the general public have not been properly trained to provide useful information. The problem seems to be that there are so many logical loopholes in the HIV/AIDS theory that there can be no sane discussion. Try asking your own GP at home some embarrassing questions about HIV in Africa vs in the Western World, about the non-specific HIV tests etc. You will first get a stern look as if you were a global moron and if you persist you will be treated like a heretic daring to doubt the official gospel.

[QUOTE=Cuba Tourist]
It seems that a heterosexual man who sero-converts positive is likely to first catch something else and then HIV. it could actually be in the same sex act--you could catch chlamydia, for example, and the irritation int he urethra could then give HIV an opening. It seems very strange that so few famous people have caught HIV. Charlie Sheen, Wilt Chamberlain, etc... the list of heterosexual males with HIV is rather short. In the porn world, there have only been a few "outbreaks" and none since Darren James. Some say that it is not a coincidence that James caught HIV in another country--that HIV in the USA is harder to spread heterosexually than HIV (or a certain sub-strain of it) in certain other countries, such as Thailand.
[/QUOTE]

The fact that it is not publicised does not mean that it does not happen anymore. However, there is substantial evidence that there is a high correlation between HIV infection and drug use (or abuse), for which the famous people in the media world are famous for.

[QUOTE=Cuba Tourist]
It seems the PCR test for HIV is generally accurate 12 days after potential exposure and maybe as soon as 72 hours. I see that someone has gotten that test for $160 in California. why is it so hard to find a place to do that test? Admittedly, it would be expensive but many of us would be willing to spend the money for a medium term gfe and maybe even for a 1 night stand. Of course you would have to quarantine her for 12 days or take some chance but it is a lot better than the Eliza test with a 6-12 week window, which makes it virtually useless. Yet the PCR test is not available in mos places and so you cannot use what could be an effecive method of screening partners which would allow you to have sex without a condom without worrying (too much) about HIV. Am I correct?
2. There is Orasure, which allows you to test saliva in 20 minutes. Why is it impossible to get this thing? apparently, the authorities are afraid people will freak out if they get a positive result, which could be a false positive, and might kill themselves. But it would seem that the public interest in giving people some tool to reduce their risk would override this concern. Of course, the 6-12 week window makes this test of limited value, but it would still be of considerable use oin many situations. Yet it is unavailable. Am I correct? [/QUOTE]

There seems to be an overriding problem with every HIV test. Since HIV itself has not been isolated and cultivated properly, it does not seem possible to devise a test that would be specific, i.e. that would react to HIV and only to that. Current tests are tracking the presence of antibodies after a successful immunitary response to HIV infection. Such antibodies are attributed to HIV, but in the absence of isolation of HIV, there is no certainty there. In fact, there is much debate about the Koch postulates, that HIV would not follow.

Koch's postulates are:
The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but not in healthy organisms.
The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

The web is full of controversy about this. Asymptomatic carriers are supposedly common feature for several infectious diseases, but in the case of HIV, there seems to be a very high proportion of asymptomatic carriers, i.e. people who are diagnosed as AIDS patients, but that show no sign of HIV infection. And of course, there are huge numbers of healthy carriers, i.e. people who have HIV but are not developing AIDS.

The bottom line is that the HIV tests are questionable, and that being tested positive does nto necessarily mean much. Over the years, some tests have been shown to react to many other things than HIV, such as malaria and a host of other tropical diseases or pregnancy.

[QUOTE=Cuba Tourist]
3. There is a much higher risk in Thailand than the Philippines because there is more of a certain type of sub-type of HIV in Thailand. True or false? [/QUOTE]

As far as I know, there is no foundation for such a belief.

[QUOTE=Cuba Tourist]
4. If you do not know the HIV status of a girl, it does not matter if you sleep with her every night or switch girls because either way if you are not using a condom you could be exposing yourself to HIV. 15 sex acts with 1 girl of unknown status is the same risk as 15 sex acts with 15 girls of unknown risk. True or untrue [/QUOTE]

Statistically, the risk of getting HIV increases with the number of unprotected sex with a HIV carrier. Definitely, 100 times is more dangerous than 1 time. However, statistics do not apply to individual behaviours. It is just like wining the lottery. You might have only 1 chance of winning the jackpot, but nearly every winner had only bought 1 ticket…

More to the point, promiscuous sexual behaviours, especially p4p, are inherently dangerous. One should focus on the seriousness of the consequences of an incident rather than the probability of an incident.

[QUOTE=Cuba Tourist]
5. Wearing a condom on the end of your penis would reduce HIV risk a real lot because the virus almost always enters the male's body through the urithra. True or false [/QUOTE]

This is very debatable. HIV being transmitted by sperm, heterosexual intercourse should be somewhat safer for the male partner than for the female partner, and much safer than homosexual male intercourse.

Frankly, as a male, I can see why unprotected sex is so attractive, to the point of being ready to engage into risky behaviours, because the risk/reward balance is so close, but I cannot see why men find women willing to accommodate that. They are much more at risk than us, and for them there is not even the bonus of better sex experience through the absence of rubber…

The bottom line is that you should surf the web. You will see that the entire HIV/AIDS thing is way more complex and controversial than most people suppose.

I did an HIV test today. Someone here in another country wrote that they knew that a girl that I knew was HIV-positive. I don't know if it's true or not, but the easiest thing was to just get tested. The last time I had the test, I did it privately and it costs about $125 and I had to wait two days to get the results. This time I went to a public facility and they gave me the OraSure test and I had my results -- negative -- in 20 minutes. It was free and there was a counselor there to talk to me after.

He said that he had done about 10,000 tests over many years and not a single heterosexual male tested positive. Then he qualified that by saying that there were some that had gotten blood transfusions or whatever, but that no male heterosexual that he had personally dealt with had tested positive without other risk factors. Of course many bisexual men claims to be heterosexual at the beginning, but apparently all of them admitted that they have had male lovers after a few minutes.

What does this mean? I find it extremely confusing. A lot of the anecdotal evidence suggests that male heterosexuals are very unlikely to come down with HIV. On the other hand, the public health people are yelling that we are at great risk. I think they are exaggerating but that doesn't mean that they are completely wrong. The problem is that we might ignore what they say because they exaggerate, and then find ourselves HIV-positive one day.

The best comment here by Seydlitz was the one where he said that said that we should concentrate on the potential impact rather than the likelihood. Still, the whole thing is very confusing and very frustrating.

[QUOTE=Cuba Tourist]I did an HIV test today. Someone here in another country wrote that they knew that a girl that I knew was HIV-positive. I don't know if it's true or not, but the easiest thing was to just get tested. The last time I had the test, I did it privately and it costs about $125 and I had to wait two days to get the results. This time I went to a public facility and they gave me the OraSure test and I had my results -- negative -- in 20 minutes. It was free and there was a counselor there to talk to me after.[/QUOTE]I recently went to a public hospital with one Thai girl and we both did an HIV rapid test for 300 baht per person (same price for me and for her). Results (both negative) were obtained (approximately) one hour after the samples were taken.

About heterosexual persons having contracted HIV/AIDS, I know a few Thai men and women who did, but I can't say for sure whether or not they have had other risky habits apart from having unprotected sex.

[QUOTE=Cuba Tourist]On the other hand, the public health people are yelling that we are at great risk. I think they are exaggerating but that doesn't mean that they are completely wrong. The problem is that we might ignore what they say because they exaggerate, and then find ourselves HIV-positive one day.[/QUOTE]

Well, it is their business. They are not going to play down anything that helps them enhance their own importance or their ability to secure public funding. As they say, turkeys do not vote for Xmas, and if they could they would also raise issues with rich food, booze and the overall obnoxiousness of being with close relatives during the festive season, not to mention the risk of drunk driving on icy and snowy road conditions etc.

Besides, being tested HIV positive is not necessarily the end of the world. You can always question the validity of the test or claim that there is no such thing as HIV in the first place, as some do, or that HIV does not case AIDS, as others say; or that if it does, it needs something else as a co-factor (as Prof. Duesberg believes). Even if HIV exists and causes AIDS, you may find yourself in the large group of people who are healthy carriers, ie. HIV positive but otherwise healthy, and that for the rest of your life (unless anti-HIV drugs kill you, that is). Even if you develop one of the 26 or so illnesses that, joined with HIV, define AIDS (that is what it is, a syndrome, not a specific disease), you can always be treated for that particular disease, with various chances of success.

No matter how you see things, HIV/AIDS is a gospel. It is necessary to swallow it all, no questions asked, because if you start asking questions, the whole thing begins to fall apart, leading to other questions and spiralling doubts. After so many billions of tax dollars spent on it over 25 years, the least you would expect would be to have a clear, comprehensive and undisputable understanding of what it is what causes it etc.

[QUOTE=Mick Licker]Meanwhile every village has both Thai men and women plentifully dieing of AIDS. It should be well known by now that Thai men (at the risk of being a bit sexist) playing up without condoms that is the chief cause of HIV spread these days.[/QUOTE]

I have to note, MickL, that when I visit the Thai-oriented venues, condom insistence is nearly universal, and it is extremely difficult and rare to be able to talk to girls out of it. By contrast girls who deal with farangs regularly are much less insistent, and often even 'go for it' bareback unasked.

I can also report that all my Thai acquaintances and mongering pals are very stringent about condom use, even to the point of stressing out about the occasional BBBJ afterwards. I've even had them ask me afterwards if they might've gotten hiv because they kissed the girl. Of course I only know middle class Thais, but my impression is that the condom propaganda is very widely accepted in this land nowadays.

As for farangs, I think it is safe to assume that few spend thousands of dollars on a trip to merely prod a plastic appliance. They spend, take time off work, and undergo arduous travel in order to have sex with actual girls.

The contrast here is that the Thais just go for a local P4P act maybe once a month or so, and its no great hardship as there is no travel or time off work expense to deal with. So in that way their expectations are kept very low. Secondly, Thai men are in general radically more potent than we aging farangs, and find it very easy to maintain interest and an erection with one of those vile implements donned.

[QUOTE=Opebo]I have to note, MickL, that when I visit the Thai-oriented venues, condom insistence is nearly universal, and it is extremely difficult and rare to be able to talk to girls out of it. By contrast girls who deal with farangs regularly are much less insistent, and often even 'go for it' bareback unasked.

I can also report that all my Thai acquaintances and mongering pals are very stringent about condom use, even to the point of stressing out about the occasional BBBJ afterwards. I've even had them ask me afterwards if they might've gotten hiv because they kissed the girl. Of course I only know middle class Thais, but my impression is that the condom propaganda is very widely accepted in this land nowadays.

As for farangs, I think it is safe to assume that few spend thousands of dollars on a trip to merely prod a plastic appliance. They spend, take time off work, and undergo arduous travel in order to have sex with actual girls.

The contrast here is that the Thais just go for a local P4P act maybe once a month or so, and its no great hardship as there is no travel or time off work expense to deal with. So in that way their expectations are kept very low. Secondly, Thai men are in general radically more potent than we aging farangs, and find it very easy to maintain interest and an erection with one of those vile implements donned.[/QUOTE]

Why do you feel the girls are going bareback with farangs? (without the farang even requesting it or offering more money) I have garnered the exact opposite information from girls dealing with Thai's....they claim all the guys want to go bareback....and will argue about this for a long time insisting that they are "clean".

[QUOTE=Opebo]I have to note, MickL, that when I visit the Thai-oriented venues, condom insistence is nearly universal, and it is extremely difficult and rare to be able to talk to girls out of it. By contrast girls who deal with farangs regularly are much less insistent, and often even 'go for it' bareback unasked.
[/QUOTE]
Thai men are well known to not like to use condoms when having sex in non-P4P situations, unless all the Thai girls are lying to me. The Thai men may well be forced to use condoms in better class MPs. They probably don't waste their time requesting not to use one when they expect to be denied. Farangs can be devious and use fingernails to break condoms on purpose.

HIV is likely to be prevalent in the very low class illegal Thai venues, where "anything goes". Any guy that is considered to be a probable frequenter of such places will probably be viewed as extra high risk even if they are Farang.

So I'm am sure some girls in a higher class Thai oriented place are viewing yourself to be just as a high risk as the Thai men. Maybe the girls are just obeying the "rules" with guys they don't know well too.

I do find it hard to fathom why girls would risk their lives for a few extra Baht when they don't really need to.

But the better educated the girl, the more likely to insist on condom use, I would think.

Based on law of averages, if a girl keeps doing bareback with many guys, she will get AIDs sooner or later. Its her fate.

If she does it with just a few high class men, she might remain lucky.

Establishments with regular health checks should be greatly preferred by us as less risky than totally uncontrolled places.

[QUOTE=Lover Boy #2]Why do you feel the girls are going bareback with farangs? (without the farang even requesting it or offering more money) I have garnered the exact opposite information from girls dealing with Thai's....they claim all the guys want to go bareback....and will argue about this for a long time insisting that they are "clean".[/QUOTE]

I think so because every farang I know goes bareback, and every girl I've spoken to says that many or most farangs prefer bareback. I've even often overheard farangs asking girls 'no condom ok?'. I've never run across any girls stating that Thai men want bareback, but as I said my information about Thai male preferrences comes more from what my Thai 'friends' and colleagues say. These gentlemen from the middle classes are well indoctrinated in the pusillanimous pro-plastic orthodoxy.

[QUOTE=Mick Licker]Thai men are well known to not like to use condoms when having sex in non-P4P situations[/quote]

Well of course, no one uses condoms in non-P4P situations, do they?

[QUOTE=Mick Licker]HIV is likely to be prevalent in the very low class illegal Thai venues, where "anything goes".[/quote]

No, the small cheap brothels are extremely condom-insistent, Mick. The one exception used to be the few in certain towns that are staffed by non-Thais (illegal immigrants), where maybe 20-30% or so of girls used to be amenable, but now even those are almost 100% condom-insistent.

[QUOTE=Mick Licker]I do find it hard to fathom why girls would risk their lives for a few extra Baht when they don't really need to.[/quote]

They won't have any return/regular customers if they don't do bareback. That is, in the farang industry.

[QUOTE=Mick Licker]Based on law of averages, if a girl keeps doing bareback with many guys, she will get AIDs sooner or later. Its her fate.[/quote]

Oddly enough, not so, Mick. The chance of transmission is so small from ordinary vaginal sex that there are a great many old ladies in their forties who have had bareback P4P sex for decades with no ill effects.

Some of that info I found correct.. other parts not so.

Not every farang (me included) does go bareback.. some guys do happen to have significant others besides hookers in their life.. and do this as a part-time thing or on occasion only. Others might have a nasty or two, and don't feel comfortable blessing the world with it.

It is true I've had many girls where I had to offer to get the rubber out first.. maybe because I look clean (misleading), or like you said they want return customers.

Which leads to the next point.. more often then not, they don't get return customers.. unless you get the 1 in 100 actually living there or doing regular trips. For myself, I might visit twice a year, and even then I generally want to sample new pussy, rather than return to old and tried pussy.. so even if I get 10/10 service, I'll still try something new.. and I suspect a lot of guys are like this as well.

As for the final point about hookers in their 40s being "without ill effects".. it depends what you mean by without ill effects.. HIV true, it's hard to catch, but I highly doubt you would find any of them without herpes, one or more strains of HPV, and other gotchas which don't leave. I didn't even mention Hep C oops. If you're OK with that then good.. or if you have them already so be it. HIV isn't the end all and be all.

And I don't want to put a damper on things, but you won't be meeting or reading about the 40+ year old hookers who did get HIV.. you're only meeting the ones who got through P4P in the last decade.


[QUOTE=Opebo]I think so because every farang I know goes bareback, and every girl I've spoken to says that many or most farangs prefer bareback. I've even often overheard farangs asking girls 'no condom ok?'.
They won't have any return/regular customers if they don't do bareback. That is, in the farang industry.

Oddly enough, not so, Mick. The chance of transmission is so small from ordinary vaginal sex that there are a great many old ladies in their forties who have had bareback P4P sex for decades with no ill effects.[/QUOTE]