Safe Sex and Sex Related Discussions in Thailand

[quote=luvpuss;1263717]you are being sarcastic, right? that is really the stupidest shit i have ever heard. just make it easy on yourself. get one of these: http://www.lastnightoffreedom.co.uk/stag-night-shop/costumes-&-fancy-dress/full-body-condom-costume/[/quote]actually, he was quite serious about the improvised sex suit and squirting coconut oil up your [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord134][CodeWord134][/url]-hole before fucking street meat bareback. still, very funny and entertaining shit! rotflmao!

Chatting to bar girls to see what motivates them. On reported to be quitting because her two kids (twins?) will be starting school and some one needs to send them to school and pick them up. Hope she saved enough money to last a while.

Chatted to an 18 year old bar girl yesterday who has a child already. Why are so many young Thai girls (from the village) having babies, and no husband or husband ran away? How come such a high proportion of bar girls in Cowboy and MP girls too, have had babies already?
Some relevant factors:

The sex education was very poor. Often Issaan girls are looked after by grand parents with very old fashioned ideas while real parents work somewhere else, e. G. Bangkok. Teenagers are often only taught one thing, being abstinence till get a proper husband, and we all know how stupid and impractical that idea is, when teenage hormones are raging.

Teenage girls are too shy to go to the pharmacy and buy anti-pregancy protection. Everyone knows each other in the village. Girls are very scared that anyone would know they are protecting against pregnancy since that would imply they are having sex. This problem would not be the case so much in Bangkok. In the village, girls may not even be able to afford anti-pregancy measures. Girls often don't even know that a morning after treatment is available to prevent pregnacy. Once the girls get pregant, they often do not get abortions because the elders are against it, perhaps religiously. The girl's future doesn't seem to come into it much. The fact that she will likely end up being a hooker, doesn't seem to matter. Teenage pregancies are also moderately common in western society, but they mostly just go get abortions, I believe.

So my assessment of the problem, is largely the elders failing to provide teenage girls with education and the means to prevent pregnancy. Once society accepts that teenage girls will likely start fucking at the age of 14 to 16, and should be taking the pill, not to mention condoms, a lot of problem pregnancies could be avoided.

[quote=chocha monger;1263725]actually, he was quite serious about the improvised sex suit and squirting coconut oil up your [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord134][CodeWord134][/url]-hole before fucking street meat bareback. still, very funny and entertaining shit! rotflmao![/quote]yeh, most of us are having a laugh, apart from sourpuss, even though dough is alternating between extreme latex coverage and barebacking advice.

[quote=chill out; 1262391]and in the west it was spreading fast in the 80s until everyone started being more careful and using condoms way more and suddenly it spread much slower. i'm not aware of any changes in nutrition or healthcare that would explain any of that.

probably not a fact that our non-condom-using members want to think about.[/quote]probably history lessons from decades ago are not so relevant to 2012, since so much has changed, so why would anyone want to think about them.

amongst those practicing abstinence & bareback monogamy hiv is almost unheard of. but maybe some condom users don't want to hear that or this:

"hand out all the condoms you want, make sure they are used, and there will still be an epidemic of stds and unplanned pregnancy. i'm old enough to recall when the pill came out. i was just a child, but i remember the stir. reliable birth control, for the 1st time! condoms have been around for centuries, in one form or another. they have never been reliable. a user might have an 85% protection rate against hiv, or pregnancy. in the real world, where the users are drunk, or stoned, it's dark, and he is rushing. are you getting the picture?"

"so maybe stop having sex, as that will 'save' even more, since condoms break, slip off, etc, and then it's like having bareback sex. so condom advocates are having bb sex too. and your type of bb sex also leads to people getting hiv. so even more would be 'saved' if you condom users quit having sex, since that often results in bare sex and hiv."

of course safe sex can involve a number of things and condoms are not a necessary item in practicing safe sex.

how much the use of condoms increased or condoms helped stem the spread of hiv many years ago relative to other safe sex practices is not known.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/safe_sex[/url]

what is known, or at least claimed, is that:

"contaminated hemophilia blood products were a serious public health problem in the late 1970s through 1985. these products caused large numbers of haemophiliacs to become infected with hiv and hepatitis c.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products[/url]

"aids was first identified as a disease in america in 1981, and since then the epidemic has been growing with alarming rapidity, and shows little sign of slowing. today, in 2005."

". it is estimated that 40, 000 new hiv infections occur in america each year, and, although this is reduced from a peak of about 150, 000 new infections per year in the 80s, the figure hasn't declined over the past decade. of these 40, 000 annual infections, about 70% are amongst males and about 30% females. cdc data tells us that, in 2003, 32, 842 hiv infections were reported (which doesn't mean that they occurred in 2003). the graph below shows the way in which annual aids cases, in spite of the availability of antiretroviral therapy, have remained fairly constant since 1999, even rising a little. at the same time, deaths of people with aids have also remained stable with 18, 017 people with aids dying in 2003,

[url]http://www.aidsonline.org/america/[/url]

"at the beginning of the new century. 774, 467 persons with aids had been reported to the cdc. 448, 060 of whom had died89. the hiv infection rate had failed to decline since the mid-nineties, highlighting the need for more effective prevention initiatives.

[url]http://www.avert.org/aids-history-america.htm[/url]

"in the early years of the epidemic, the most commonly identified 'vulnerable groups' in america were men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, haemophiliacs and haitians.

"today, aids continues to directly affect thousands of gay and bisexual men and injecting drug users every year, but it has also become a serious problem among black americans and, more recently, among the hispanic / latino population. however, it is not necessarily individual behaviour, but rather a person's sexual network which determines an individual's hiv risk in america. therefore, black males are much more likely to be infected because of the high prevalence in this community and a tendency to choose racially similar partners as opposed to simply high-risk behaviour.

"men who have sex with men: at the beginning of america's epidemic, aids primarily affected men who have sex with men (msm). today, msm still account for around three-quarters of hiv diagnoses among male adults and adolescents and the rate of hiv diagnoses among msm is more than 44 times that of other men. 21 according to one study published by the cdc in 2010, one in five msm in the 21 cities surveyed has hiv and almost half are unaware of their status. 22

". injecting drug users: among those living with an aids diagnosis in the us in 2008, around 20 percent were infected with hiv through injecting drug use (idu).28

"one of the three components of america's national hiv / aids strategy is the reduction of new hiv infections. according to the strategy "not every person or group has an equal chance of becoming infected with hiv".39 accordingly, the strategy recommends that hiv prevention efforts are intensified in the communities where hiv is the most heavily concentrated. the strategy is careful not to endorse one prevention method, such as condom use, education or testing, over another. instead, it insists that 'overlapping, combination' approaches that have been proven to work and are cost-efficient be used to target high-risk populations including gay men, black and latino americans and injecting drug users.

"necessary prevention efforts identified in the strategy include testing, linkage to care and treatment and assistance with drug treatment, housing and mental health services.

"american health authorities are placing increased emphasis on the role that 'social determinants of health' such as a person's age, class, race, living environment and poor access to health care have on their risk of becoming infected with hiv. 51 to reduce hiv infections among the worst affected groups, the cdc emphasises the need to address these structural factors, instead of focusing simply on behavioural prevention.

"of all the industrialised countries in the world, america is home to the largest number of people living with hiv. tens of thousands of people are newly infected with hiv in america every year and although infection rates have declined among injecting drug users, there has been an alarming increase among men who have sex with men. 84.

[url]http://www.avert.org/america.htm[/url]

"during 2009, there were an estimated 42, 959 new diagnoses of hiv infection in the 40 states and five dependent areas. adult or adolescent males accounted for three-quarters of new hiv diagnoses. the main transmission route among males was male-to-male sexual contact (74%) , followed by heterosexual contact (14%) and injecting drug use (8%). among female adult and adolescents. 84. 9% were infected through heterosexual contact and 14. 8% through injecting drug use.

"in 2009 blacks / african americans made up an estimated 50% of new hiv diagnoses, whites 27, and hispanics / latinos 19.

"since 2000 the annual number of new aids diagnoses has remained relatively constant, with an estimated 34, 993 in 2009.

"in 1981, the first cases of what is now known as aids were reported in the usa during the 1980s there was a rapid increase in the number of reported aids cases and aids deaths. cases peaked with the 1993 expansion of the case definition. 4 and then declined. the most dramatic drops in both cases and deaths began in 1996, with the widespread use of combination antiretroviral therapy.

"in recent years the use of antiretroviral therapy has slowed the progression of hiv in many infected persons and hence contributed to a decline in aids incidence.

[url]http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm[/url]

"growth of the epidemic in the united states from 1981 to 1996

"aids case surveillance reported the highest number of new cases by date of diagnosis in 1993, but this was in part an artifact of the change in the aids case definition in 1993 to include a cd4-lymphocyte count below 200 cells / mm3 or cd4 percentage below 14. cdc estimated that the peak incidence based on the pre-1993 aids case definition would have occurred in 1995. since the incubation period of aids prior to the use of effective antiretroviral therapy was approximately ten years, the epidemic of hiv infections must have peaked around the mid-1980s. the period from 1981 to 1995 was characterized by a very rapid increase in aids diagnoses. by the fall of 1981, more than 100 aids cases had been reported to the cdc. by february 1983, the first 1, 000 cases had been reported. the second 1, 000 were reported in the next 6 months and the third 1, 000 before the end of the year. by the late 1980s, cases had been reported from every state. it took 8 years (until august 1989) for the first 100, 000 cases to be reported; the second 100, 000 were reported in just 2 years (by november 1991). the half million total was passed in october of 1995. the cumulative total of cases through december 2001 was 816, 149 of whom 666, 026 (81. 6%) were men. 141, 048 (17. 3%) were women, and 9, 074 (1. 1%) were children **** 13.

"changes in demographic characteristics of cases over time

"the characteristics of the first 50, 352 cases, reported between 1981 and 1987 to cdc, differ significantly from the characteristics of the 69, 151 cases reported a decade later in 1996. the epidemic has become increasingly an epidemic of non-white populations, of women, and of heterosexuals and injecting drug users.

"the proportion of cases who were "men who have sex with men" (msm) declined from 71% in 1983 to 44% in 1996 (of whom 4% also reported injecting drug use)

"those estimates from 1998 through 2001 are about 40, 000 per year, the same number that was being estimated in the late 1980s and early 1990s. the lack of good national data on infection rates makes it difficult to judge any of these estimates, but they may be too low if there is in fact a significant increase in incidence rates among homosexual men. similar increases have not been reported for injecting drug users.

"in sum, we currently do not have good projections of the future of the epidemic in the usa or of the present rate of new infections. given that projections from a decade ago of somewhere around 40, 000 infections per year seem to have been borne out by new aids cases in the 1990s, we can anticipate those numbers as a minimum likely projection for the next few years with the sobering possibility that they may be on the increase, at least among homosexual men, who still account for the largest proportion of new aids cases.

[url]http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=kb-01-03[/url]

#s1. 4x

[QUOTE=PinkPearl;1264745]Amongst those practicing abstinence & bareback monogamy HIV is almost unheard of. But maybe some condom users don't want to hear that or this:[/QUOTE]I fail to understand the relevancy of your message for us mongers.

Pattaya Mail this weeks newspaper reported a large increase in HIV / AIDS in Pattaya.

LBM

[QUOTE=PinkPearl;1264745]Amongst those practicing abstinence & bareback monogamy HIV is almost unheard of.[/QUOTE]Duh. And among tribes in the Amazonian jungle, deaths by car crash are very rare. What does that have to do with anything?

[QUOTE=PinkPearl; 1264745]In the real world, where the users are drunk, or stoned, it's dark, and he is rushing. Are you getting the picture?

"So maybe stop having sex, as that will 'save' even more, since condoms break, slip off, etc, and then it's like having bareback sex. So condom advocates are having BB sex too.[/QUOTE]If you can't see how faulty that logic is, then there is not much we can do for you. Go read my safety belts analogy again, it's exactly the same absurd reasoning. In some rare cases they don't work, so therefore (big logical fallacy coming in 3, 2, 1...) never using them is just as safe as using them all the time. Right? Right?

Just say you don't like condoms and you are OK to live with the risk (and don't mind risking girls' lives in the process) , but don't try to convince people there is no difference. You'll find no scientific support whatsoever for that point of view.

By the way in your quotes, you point out that AIDS is much more prevalent in higher risk groups - drug users, gay men, black men. This is true and nobody disputes that. Do you think hookers who go bareback with guys for an extra 500 baths would be considered a high risk group?

And what is the commonality between drugs user, gay men and black men? More volume of risk (more promiscuity or use of needles compared to the general public) + less safe practices (safe sex or clean needles) . Anything you see in common with mongers who go bareback?

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1264851]And among tribes in the Amazonian jungle, deaths by car crash are very rare. What does that have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]One point is the hypocrisy of pro condom advocates whining that bareback mongers are putting girls at risk while they themselves are doing the same. If not risking others is their goal in life, then why not become abstinent, monogamous, whack off to porn, or join a convent?

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1264851]In some rare cases they don't work,[/QUOTE]Millions of 'condom failures' occur every day.

"Hand out all the condoms you want, make sure they are used, and there will still be an epidemic of STDs and unplanned pregnancy. I'm old enough to recall when the pill came out. I was just a child, but I remember the stir. Reliable birth control, for the 1st time! Condoms have been around for centuries, in one form or another. They have never been reliable. A user might have an 85% protection rate against HIV, or pregnancy. In the real world, where the users are drunk, or stoned, it's dark, and he is rushing. Are you getting the picture?"

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1264851]never using them is just as safe as using them all the time. Right? Right?[/QUOTE]Not at all, but like I said to you a few days ago:

"Don't get me wrong, condoms can provide safer sex, just as one can practice safe bareback sex & be nearly as safe or safer than your typical condom user." {March 29/12)

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1264851]Just say you don't like condoms and you are OK to live with the risk (and don't mind risking girls' lives in the process)[/QUOTE]It seems that it is some anti bareback advocates who needs to come to grips with the fact condom users "don't mind risking girl's lives". Although, since we are not living in the 1980's anymore, HIV is not considered a death sentence, so it would be more correct to speak of a risk to girls' health, not their "lives".

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1264851], but don't try to convince people there is no difference. You'll find no scientific support whatsoever for that point of view.[/QUOTE]Once again, I wouldn't dream of it. Just don't try to convince me condom users are not putting their own health and their sex partners at risk. That's the chance we all take when we choose to have insertive penile sex with another person rather than joining the priesthood or castrating ourselves.

Furthermore would you like me to list the various ways one engaging in bareback sex can be nearly as safe or safer re HIV than those who use condoms? Clearly mongers who use condoms wish to have their cake & eat it too, that is have both fun and safety, so this should be of interest to you.

[QUOTE=Chill Out; 1264851]By the way in your quotes, you point out that AIDS is much more prevalent in higher risk groups. Drug users, gay men, black men. This is true and nobody disputes that. Do you think hookers who go bareback with guys for an extra 500 baths would be considered a high risk group?

And what is the commonality between drugs user, gay men and black men? More volume of risk (more promiscuity or use of needles compared to the general public) + less safe practices (safe sex or clean needles). Anything you see in common with mongers who go bareback?[/QUOTE]Of course hookers in general are a high risk group, especially those who go bareback. So it makes it all the more important to be (1) circumcised, (2) know your partner has recently tested negative for STDs (3) abstain from anal sex which is about 15 times riskier than vaginal (and BTW with a condom Greek sex is as risky as bareback vaginal sex) , (4) avoid drug users, (5) prefer those who are low millage & (6) reluctant to go without the rubber & (7) as a safety measure for her health, which also reduces the risk of pregnancy, not finish inside her.

""Since the onset of the HIV / AIDS pandemic in 1981 cases of people with a natural immunity to HIV have been documented. This mutation likely evolved to provide added protection against smallpox. Up to 1% of Northern Europeans (with Swedes being in the majority) followed by a similar percentage of Central Asians have this mutation, which if inherited from both parents provides them total immunity while another 10-15% of Northern Europeans and Central Asians having inherited the mutation from one parent exhibit greater resistance in lieu of complete immunity to HIV."

[url]http://www.medicalcareadvices.com/[/url]

[QUOTE=PinkPearl;1264906]Of course hookers in general are a high risk group, especially those who go bareback. So it makes it all the more important to be (1) circumcised, (2) know your partner has recently tested negative for STDs (3) abstain from anal sex which is about 15 times riskier than vaginal (and BTW with a condom Greek sex is as risky as bareback vaginal sex) , (4) avoid drug users, (5) prefer those who are low millage & (6) reluctant to go without the rubber & (7) as a safety measure for her health, which also reduces the risk of pregnancy, not finish inside her.[/QUOTE]I am quite sure that when you practice (1) to (7) bare-back you are still running a much higher risk than following the same (1) to (7) practice combined with using a condom.

You are comparing apples with pears: high risk behavior with condom against lower risk behavior without condom.

It is clear that when comparing like-with-like, use of a condom tremendously lowers the risk. In all my life I never went bare-back unless with my wife or a long-time monogamous GF (that is just a matter of self-control) and I only had once a condom slip off and once a condom that was torn (and those are matters of plain bad luck). So your statistic that condoms "fail" in 15% of cases seems wide off the mark.

There is no such things as zero risk in our hobby, but it is not too difficult to lower your chances of things going wrong. Your posts are clear examples of "bad science" and should be exposed as such, lest you lead some of our brethren on a path to perdition.

What Wolven said. You are comparing apple to pears and talking about extremes to justify your behavior. You are the guy doing 60mph without a safety belt saying "yeah but some others do 100mph and they are high, too!". That is not going to save you (or your female passenger) when you crash your car.

In my lifetime of using condoms (thousands of sex acts) I've had very few condoms failure. Maybe 10 in total. 15 at the very most. 80% of those in my teens when I didn't know what I was doing. Very few since then. In every case I realized it and was out of the girl within seconds. Let's make that a minute for argument's case and you get 15 times x 1 minute = 15 minutes of risky bareback with strangers in my lifetime (and that's a very generous estimate).

Only one of those times was with a high risk group - I had a condom failure on my very first time with a prostitute. The first failure in several years. Why? Because I bought the same brand I use in my home country, same package, but the size in Thailand was different. I was bareback in the girl for maybe 10 seconds. Did I use that as an excuse to say "condoms don't work"? No, I did a one minute search in 7/11, found the right package for me in Thailand, and started to use that.

How many condom failures did I experience since then? Zero.

The point is are you still negative?

[QUOTE=Chill Out; 1265208]What Wolven said. You are comparing apple to pears and talking about extremes to justify your behavior. You are the guy doing 60mph without a safety belt saying "yeah but some others do 100mph and they are high, too!". That is not going to save you (or your female passenger) when you crash your car.

In my lifetime of using condoms (thousands of sex acts) I've had very few condoms failure. Maybe 10 in total. 15 at the very most. 80% of those in my teens when I didn't know what I was doing. Very few since then. In every case I realized it and was out of the girl within seconds. Let's make that a minute for argument's case and you get 15 times x 1 minute = 15 minutes of risky bareback with strangers in my lifetime (and that's a very generous estimate).

Only one of those times was with a high risk group. I had a condom failure on my very first time with a prostitute. The first failure in several years. Why? Because I bought the same brand I use in my home country, same package, but the size in Thailand was different. I was bareback in the girl for maybe 10 seconds. Did I use that as an excuse to say "condoms don't work"? No, I did a one minute search in 7/11, found the right package for me in Thailand, and started to use that.

How many condom failures did I experience since then? Zero.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1265003]I am quite sure that when you practice (1) to (7) bare-back you are still running a much higher risk than following the same (1) to (7) practice combined with using a condom.[/QUOTE]One study estimated the risk to be 4 to 5 times greater without a condom. Other opinions I've read say 10 or even 20 times.

"The reduced risk to the receptive partner of acquiring HIV from HIV seropositive partners not wearing condoms compared to when they wear them is estimated to be about four to fivefold."

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_sex[/url]

But most pooners in Thailand who always use condoms with P4P TGs are neither circumcised nor aware of their sex partners recent HIV results, if she has even ever been tested. A barebacker who has those two advantages, including the girl testing negative for HIV, may be nearly as safe or even safer re HIV than the aforementioned condom users. This is because circumcision alone is believed to reduce risk for HIV by 50 to 60 percent, which is similar to the estimated percentage for condoms at 80 to 95 percent. Add the recent HIV-N result and the circumcised barebacker has even more protection. OTOH our condom stickler, who has no clue as to his prostitutes' health status, could be sticking it in a lady who would test positive for HIV. BTW in this regard, the US porn industry has been full of bareback sex, enforces monthly blood tests, and been successful against STDs.

"AIM Healthcare Foundation has stated that the rate of STDs in adult film actors in production companies that follow the AIM testing protocols is 2. 4 (percent) , which they state is "considerably lower than the average for sexually active young people with similar demographics." "

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_in_the_pornographic_film_industry[/url]

The problem with bareback is that it becomes addictive.

Up until 12 months ago I was SUPER careful and ALWAYS used condoms in every situation whether freebie or working girl (my preference is more for internet freebies).

I met a girl from the internet and brought her home to my place within about 5 minutes of meeting. Then we got straight down to it and I ended up going bareback and it was then that the whole "addiction" started.

For me its not just the increased sensation but rather something physcological about a girl that would allow you to fuck them bareback. It is somehow so much more raunchy. If a girl asks me to use a condom then I definitely will and indeed the fact that she has asked takes away the physcological thrill anyway.

I guess its a bit like Anal sex right. The pussy feels so much better but there is some kind of raunchiness about a girl wanting it in the ass. Having said that I don't ever go anal bareback as the risk is much much greater.

I know the risks involved in all this but sadly that just seems to make it all the more exciting. I hope I can stop this addiction soon and my greatest concern is for the girl rather than myself although I never cum inside as that would be pure evil.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht; 1265003]You are comparing apples with pears: high risk behavior with condom against lower risk behavior without condom.

It is clear that when comparing like-with-like, use of a condom tremendously lowers the risk. In all my life I never went bare-back unless with my wife or a long-time monogamous GF (that is just a matter of self-control) and I only had once a condom slip off and once a condom that was torn (and those are matters of plain bad luck). So your statistic that condoms "fail" in 15% of cases seems wide off the mark.

There is no such things as zero risk in our hobby, but it is not too difficult to lower your chances of things going wrong. Your posts are clear examples of "bad science" and should be exposed as such, lest you lead some of our brethren on a path to perdition.[/QUOTE]Don't fool yourself, sex with ladies of the night in Thailand is considered "high risk behaviour" whether with or without latex.

Feel free to dismiss the research and studies done as "bad science" and put more value on your solitary experiences with condoms, as if it proves them all wrong. Personally I cannot see how anyone would find such a method to be scientific or objective. Should we discount all evidence that condoms provide protection because one barebacker is HIV negative after entering hundreds of Thai hookers?

Regarding the estimated rate of about 15 percent, this refers to the reduction of risk for HIV with condom use relative to bareback sex. It is not an exact figure. As I posted recently in this thread, studies vary from 80 to 95 percent. If you are doing better than that, then you are doing better than most, are self-controlled, disciplined, or lucky or both.

"According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) , consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV / AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0. 9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6. 7 per 100 person-years. [52] Analysis published in 2007 from the University of Texas Medical Branch [53] and the World Health Organization[54] found similar risk reductions of 80–95."

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom[/url]

Disciplined and educated condom users will fare better than the average guy using rubbers. Similarly bare-backers who have those advantages and are able to put into effect various safe sex measures will be safer than other BBers, and in some cases even safer than most condom users.

To give another idea of how unsafe condoms are:

"The perfect use pregnancy rate of condoms is 2% per year."

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom[/url]

IOW each year one in fifty couples using condoms to prevent pregnancy will have an unwanted pregnancy.

"Like my married friends, who didn't want children ever, and only used condoms. As the girl would get too fat on the pill. 2 kids in the next 4 years."

The Wikipedia article says the "rate of breakage is between 0. 4% and 2. 3, while the rate of slippage is between 0. 6% and 1. 3. [53] Even if no breakage or slippage is observed. 1–2% of women will test positive for semen residue after intercourse with a condom. [62][63]"

". One study found that semen exposure from a broken condom was about half that of unprotected intercourse; semen exposure from a slipped condom was about one-fifth that of unprotected intercourse. [67]"

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom[/url]

"A large body of research in the United States has shown that rates of breakage, caused by fault in the condom itself, are less than 2 condoms out of every 100 condoms. Studies also indicate that condoms slip off the penis in about 1-5% of acts of vaginal intercourse and slip down (but not off) about 3-13% of the time. 9

". A major factor that can lead to a condom breaking or slipping off during sex is it's size, as this can affect how easy it is to put on and how likely it is to stay on. Different sizes of condoms are available, and it is important to make sure that the condom being used is the correct fit. 11"

[url]http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm[/url]

"The reason condoms are not 100% protective has to do with many potential factors, such as:

"Using condoms improperly. This is a biggy! You'd be amazed how many studs just don't know how to dress for success!

"Condom failure. It's rare, but it can happen, especially if one is stingy with the lube.

[url]http://www.thebody.com/[/url]

Forums / AIDS / SafeSex / Q185380. Html? H96o.

"Common justifications include the idea that sexual intercourse without a condom is more intimate; that sex without a condom is "uninterrupted" whereas sex with a condom takes "work" and ruins the mood; and perhaps more importantly, that sex with a condom either feels significantly less pleasurable or even actively irritates their vaginal walls and leaves the vagina sore and / or irritated whereas condomless sex does not.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom[/url]

#Causes_of_failure.

"But if condom sex works for you, and you find the condom intimate, romantic, spontaneous, sexy, sensual, a turn on, never a hindrance to getting it up or the enjoyment of love making, then all the power to ya, pal. OTOH, if you have found it just the opposite, and sex is by far the greatest thing that makes you want to live, you might feel differently. BTW I see you like BBBJs. Why. Because the look, experience and feeling is far better."

[QUOTE=Bowerboy; 1265503]The problem with bareback is that it becomes addictive.

Up until 12 months ago I was SUPER careful and ALWAYS used condoms in every situation whether freebie or working girl (my preference is more for internet freebies).

I met a girl from the internet and brought her home to my place within about 5 minutes of meeting. Then we got straight down to it and I ended up going bareback and it was then that the whole "addiction" started.

For me its not just the increased sensation but rather something physcological about a girl that would allow you to fuck them bareback. It is somehow so much more raunchy. If a girl asks me to use a condom then I definitely will and indeed the fact that she has asked takes away the physcological thrill anyway.

I guess its a bit like Anal sex right. The pussy feels so much better but there is some kind of raunchiness about a girl wanting it in the ass. Having said that I don't ever go anal bareback as the risk is much much greater.

I know the risks involved in all this but sadly that just seems to make it all the more exciting. I hope I can stop this addiction soon and my greatest concern is for the girl rather than myself although I never cum inside as that would be pure evil.[/QUOTE]I second that! It can be very addictive! Like you I make it a point to use a condom. But recently with this one provider I can't seem to help myself and after the event I promise myself it won't happen again. It feels great at the time but after it feels even worse it is very physcological.

LBM