Safe Sex and Sex Related Discussions in Thailand

[QUOTE=Syzygies;1266297]Your post seems self-contradictory. They "will not break" but a "few times breaking".[/QUOTE]No, as I've said, I've had it happen a few times when I was young and dumb and started using condoms, these incidents are what I'm talking about. Out of 10 or 15 problems, most of them were slipping, but I've had a few breakings.

All of the problems quoted in the last few posts are easily solved with the most basic common sense. Buy your own, use new ones, put them on yourself, etc. Yes, an uneducated 19 year old WG isn't going to splurge on the best brand for you, or think about checking the date or the size, etc. Shocking, I know. It's your own responsibility to protect yourself. Do not use common sense and you'll get into Pinkpearl's famous "15% of failures" that "you can't do nothing about".

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht; 1265003]I think your calculations are off by several orders of magnitude.

Assume 1 in 2000 SW are HIV infected and that the transmission rate is 10. I do not know if this is correct, I just use your figures for the sake of argument.

That means that at each and every sex act you have a 1 in 2000 chance to meet an infected sex worker or 1999 in 2000 chances to meet a clean one. When meeting an infected on, you have 90 chances in 100 not to be infected.[/QUOTE]Actually the 1 in 2000 chance I referred to was from the Wikipedia article I quoted, and is about the risk of insertive vaginal sex with an already HIV positive reciever, and the chance of becoming infected with HIV from fucking her one time without a condom. As per the following link under "transmission":

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

The rate of person's infected in the target group was given as 10% by the individual I quoted, who said he figured that was too high. Among Thai female sex workers the following study gives a rate of 2. 79 percent.

[url]http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/monitoringcountryprogress/2010progressreportssubmittedbycountries/thailand_2010_country_progress_report_en.pdf[/url]

"Percentage of most-at-risk populations who are HIV infected. SW 3. 17, FSW 2. 79, MSW 14. 17, MSM 13. 53, IDU 38. 67 (2010) (page 14)

FSW Female sex workers.

IDU Injecting Drug Users.

MSM Men who have Sex with Men.

MSW Male Sex Workers.

SW Sex Workers.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1265003]So each time you have unprotected sex you have 1999/2000 + (1/2000 x 90/100) chances not being infected afterwards. That is a chance of 99. 95% (or p = 0. 9995).[/QUOTE]IOW about a 1 in 10, 000 chance of being infected? Or about one HIV infection every 27 years, if you had BBFS once every day, on average? Or with BBFS weekly or monthly, an HIV infection about once every 190 or 833 years, respectively?

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht; 1265003]Assume you will have 3 times sex a week (say 150 times per year) for the next 20 years, that is 3000 sex acts in total.

Your chances to remain uninfected then are 0. 9995 * 3000 (* means "to the power of") , or 0. 860705, or about 86. In other words after 20 years of unprotected sex three times a week, you will have 14% chance to become infected with HIV.[/QUOTE]IOW about a 1 in 7 chance of infection in 20 years. What would that make the chance in 40 or 60 years?

By your calculations how much lower would the 14% be if we assume female sex workers in Thailand are infected with HIV 2. 79% of the time?

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht; 1265003]Now assume a condom gives you 85% protection (I think it is much more, but let's leave it at 85%). Then your chance of not getting infected at each sex act becomes 1999/2000 + (1/2000 x 98. 5/100) or 0. 9999925. And your "20 years at 3 times / week" score gets up to 0. 9778 or almost 98 per cent. Your 14% lifetime "bad" chance has just dropped to a bit over 2 per cent.

Having unprotected sex is therefore 7 times as risky as having protected sex. QED.[/QUOTE]I guess you meant 20 year rather than "lifetime".

IYO would that figure of 7 times remain constant for longer periods than 20 years, a lower infection rate in the target group, or sex less frequently than 3 times a week?

I take it that circumcision plus HIV testing would reduce the difference between rubber and BB to about nil. I think that is what they call having your cake and eating it too.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1266273]Having unprotected sex is therefore 7 times as risky as having protected sex. QED.[/QUOTE]Yes, well, thats the 85% reduction by rubbers. Such a calculation becomes much more interesting (and also not redundant) if you know the real HIV prevalence, and risk. Your guesstimates are a bit off, with prevalance in SWs higher and transmission risk much lower in most markets.

BTW, I also think the 85% figure is higher if quality condoms are used in the correct way.

[QUOTE=PinkPearl; 1266455]Actually the 1 in 2000 chance I referred to was from the Wikipedia article I quoted, and is about the risk of insertive vaginal sex with an already HIV positive reciever, and the chance of becoming infected with HIV from fucking her one time without a condom. As per the following link under "transmission":

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Pute Nut;1266509]Such a calculation becomes much more interesting (and also not redundant) if you know the real HIV prevalence, and risk. Your guesstimates are a bit off, with prevalance in SWs higher and transmission risk much lower in most markets.

BTW, I also think the 85% figure is higher if quality condoms are used in the correct way.[/QUOTE]
OK. Updated the figures.

Assuming 2. 79% of Thai sex workers are HIV-infected and a transmission rate of 38 in 10000 (uncircumsized men, unprotected vaginal sex) , gives you a chance of not catching it of 0. 99989398 per sex act. At 3 times sex per week over 20 years, you have a 73 per cent of not getting infected. At 40 years exposure, it goes down to 53 per cent. At 60 years of exposure, it becomes 39 per cent. 3 times sex per week during 60 years will probably kill you from exhaustion already.

Circumcision lowers the transmission rate by (average) 55 per cent. Plugging that in the formula gives you the following chance to escape infection:

20 years: 87 per cent. (that is a 1 in 8 chance to catch HIV)

40 years: 75 per cent. (that is a 1 in 4 chance to catch HIV)

60 years: 65 per cent. (that is a 1 in 3 chance to catch HIV)

Condom use lowers the transmission rate by (average) 85 per cent (at least. I think with some care it will be much better). Plugging that in the formula gives you the following chance to escape infection:

20 years: 95 per cent. (that is a 1 in 20 chance to catch HIV)

40 years: 91 per cent. (that is a 1 in 11 chance to catch HIV)

60 years: 87 per cent. (that is a 1 in 8 chance to catch HIV)

Condom use is still significantly better than circumcision: using a condom gives you as much chance to catch HIV in 60 years of mongering as someone being circumcised and having unprotected sex in 20 years.

Only having sex with a partner that has tested "clean" will certainly reduce your risk, but as no test is 100 per cent reliable, it will not catch a recent infection (there is a "blind spot" of (on average) three months) and it will not predict what will happen tomorrow (are you sure your partner is monogamous?) , you are still at risk.

There are other vectors involved as well. For example the penchant for a good percentage (again, no scientific study here, but I'm sure more than a few guys can attest) of local sex workers to work through their menstrual cycles, with the only 'protection' between you and her blood being a small sized bath sponge purchased at the local Big C or Tesco Lotus. Also, safe to assume that the figures being thrown around here weren't conducted in "1 in 2000" [B]prostitute[/B] samples, more likely calculated as "1 in 2000" [B]women[/B] (even HIV positive women) type samples. So more realistically some calculations should be adjusted for having unprotected sex with X out of XXX women with active / open herpes lesions (or any number of diseases or behavior that facilitates transmission of other diseases) or women who have 50-90 sex partners per month for example. That's different than having sex with women who might have gotten HIV through a blood transfusion or some kind of one off accident. Sure, a lot of prostitutes 'seem' more hygienic than normal girls, but that's because if they don't they'll find themselves sick pretty quickly (with the 50-90 cycles thing) by their own experience, not because of any kind of higher sense of cleanliness.

:)

[QUOTE=Dash Riprock; 1266583]There are other vectors involved as well. For example the penchant for a good percentage (again, no scientific study here, but I'm sure more than a few guys can attest) of local sex workers to work through their menstrual cycles

{snip)

Also, safe to assume that the figures being thrown around here weren't conducted in "1 in 2000" [B]prostitute[/B] Samples, more likely calculated as "1 in 2000" [B]women[/B] (even HIV positive women) type samples. So more realistically some calculations should be adjusted for having unprotected sex with X out of XXX women with active / open herpes lesions (or any number of diseases or behavior that facilitates transmission of other diseases) or women who have 50-90 sex partners per month for example.

(snip) [/QUOTE]I think those are reasonable factors to be considered in the rate of transmission. This suggests reasons why in my 7 ways to safer bareback sex I included low millage partners. In ths regard, in the prostitution industry in Thailand, we hear reports about part timer, college, university, or occasional sex workers, people who are probably not having "50-90 sex partners per month".

Another variable influencing the 1 in 2000 figure would be antiretroviral drugs. It is claimed they can help reduce the HIV infection rate by as high as 100 percent, a number that would surpass perfect use of a condom at around 97-99 percent. Of course where viral loads are not low or condoms are used poorly, the percentages go down significantly.

"Back then, HIV was still considered pretty much a death sentence, and now since then, with new medications. [HIV carriers] can actually lower what's called their viral load, so the chances of them transmitting the disease really becomes almost theoretical," Brosnahan said.

[url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hears-hiv-disclosure-case-153154940.html[/url]

One study found that 11, 000 acts of unprotected heterosexual sex without the advantage of ARV drugs resulted in 5 new cases of HIV, while 7000 acts with ARV produced no HIV seroconversions.

"CONCLUSIONS: The heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1 in individuals taking effective antiretroviral treatment is low."

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20472675[/url]

"Anti-retroviral treatment of infected patients also significantly reduces their ability to transmit HIV to others, by reducing the amount of virus in their bodily fluids to undetectable levels. [91]"

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

Yet another factor in lowering the risk and rate of HIV infection is via testing. We have already seen the claim that the USA porn industry, that tests for HIV & other STI's monthly, had STDs rates that were 20% of a similar population. The following study estimated:

"Choosing a partner who tested negative instead of an untested partner reduced the relative risk of HIV infection 47-fold; using condoms. 20-fold; and choosing insertive fellatio rather than insertive anal sex. 13-fold."

"CONCLUSION: Clarifying the magnitude of risk associated with different choices may help people make effective and sustainable changes in behavior."

[url]http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Abstract/2002/01000/Reducing_the_Risk_of_Sexual_HIV_Transmission_.7.aspx[/url]

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1266561]Only having sex with a partner that has tested "clean" will certainly reduce your risk, but as no test is 100 per cent reliable, it will not catch a recent infection (there is a "blind spot" of (on average) three months) and it will not predict what will happen tomorrow (are you sure your partner is monogamous?) , you are still at risk.[/QUOTE]According to the following article:

"Modern HIV testing is highly accurate. With confirmatory Western blot, the chance of a false-positive identification in a low-prevalence setting is about 1 in 250 000 (95% CI. 1 in 173 000 to 1 in 379 000).

"The window period is the time from infection until a test can detect any change. The average window period with HIV-1 antibody tests is 25 days for subtype B. Antigen testing cuts the window period to approximately 16 days and NAT (Nucleic Acid Testing) further reduces this period to 12 days. [2]"

If the average window period is 25 days for the standard test, then won't 50% of infected peple be detected via testing if they are tested after 25 days? Of course the liklihood of a random sex worker having an infection in the last 25 days is small anyway, and a negative test would further reduce the liklihood that infection occured during those 25 days (by 50%) as well as indicating the patient was HIV free prior to those 25 days with virtually 100% certainty.

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

"As far as testing is concerned, at 6 weeks a standard HIV antibody test will detect over 95% of infections and at 8 weeks virtually all infections will be detectable"

[url]http://www.medhelp.org/posts/HIV-Prevention/worried-about-insertive-anal-sex-and-HIV/show/1251604[/url]

Also it seems there are tests that will detect an infection as recently as 2 or 3 weeks from an infection:

"The HIV antibody test is the most commonly used test, and generally provides the most reliable results. However, other tests that detect the presence of HIV directly are available. Tests such as the HIV PCR test can usually give accurate results within three weeks of infection. However, not all clinics will offer these tests, and you may have to pay for them if they do. You should ask your healthcare provider for more information if you wish to take an HIV test before three months have elapsed.

"NAT generally gives positive results much sooner than standard antibody testing would, making it useful in situations where early diagnosis is necessary. An RNA PCR test will produce a positive test result within two to three weeks. A DNA PCR test will provide positive results within three to four weeks (sometimes sooner). As long as the recommended amount of time has elapsed before taking the test (people taking the test for personal diagnosis should ask their testing clinic if they are unsure) , the test will be able to give a very accurate result. False positive results are more common than false negatives due to the PCR test's sensitivity, so all positive results must be double checked using a standard antibody test."

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

"In fact, you can now get an HIV test with an accurate result from four weeks after potential infection.

"The majority (70-90%) of people do experience symptoms soon after HIV infection and these generally disappear after two to three weeks. After that most people do not experience symptoms again for many years and feel fit and healthy. The most common symptoms of early HIV infection are fever, rash and severe sore throat all occurring together – this combination of symptoms is unusual in healthy people and indicates the need for an HIV test."

[url]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111028125208AA6B7WY[/url]

The above suggests a way to detect and weed out early stage HIV positive sex workers. If she has those symptoms, avoid her or at least anal or vaginal intercourse. It seems if such symptoms appear it would be in the "window period" that a HIV test might miss.

"The stages of HIV infection are acute infection (also known as primary infection) , latency and AIDS. Acute infection lasts for several weeks and may include symptoms such as fever, lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes) , pharyngitis (sore throat) , rash, myalgia (muscle pain) , malaise, and mouth and esophageal sores. The latency stage involves few or no symptoms and can last anywhere from two weeks to twenty years or more, depending on the individual. AIDS, the final stage of HIV infection, is defined by low CD4+ T cell counts (fewer than 200 per microliter) , various opportunistic infections, cancers and other conditions."

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

Testing and treatment for other STDs, if any, is important, since they can increase the chances for HIV transmission.

"Other sexually transmitted infections (STI) increase the risk of HIV transmission and infection, because they cause the disruption of the normal epithelial barrier by genital ulceration and / or microulceration; and by accumulation of pools of HIV-susceptible or HIV-infected cells (lymphocytes and macrophages) in semen and vaginal secretions. Epidemiological studies from sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and North America suggest that genital ulcers, such as those caused by syphilis and / or chancroid, increase the risk of becoming infected with HIV by about fourfold. There is also a significant although lesser increase in risk from STIs such as gonorrhea, chlamydia and trichomoniasis, which all cause local accumulations of lymphocytes and macrophages. [53]"

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

Regarding HIV tests, this site suggests that it's "best to do both antibody and antigen tests" & "then you are well covered unless the other person picked up HIV only within the last week or so."

"So if you want to be safe, then you'd better find a place that will do an antigen test that would detect HIV in your partner within the first few weeks of an infection. The type of test you want is a "PCR test. The most common is a "PCR RNA test" which is what is used to screen donated blood for HIV (of course donated blood is screened for antigens, not just antibodies!) , so these tests are common.

[url]http://www.thailandguru.com/hiv-aids-thailand.html[/url]

The following site claims:

"Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing (NAT) is the newest technology available at Anonymous Clinic to determine your HIV status after only 5 days of possible exposure to the infection. New, safe and extremely accurate, with NAT you can now know your status much earlier, shortening the window period between the infection and detectability of disease."

"HIV can be detected on after only 5 days of exposure, average 2 weeks"

[url]http://www.adamslove.org/en-d.php?id=70[/url]

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1266247]That's really what it's all about for you. The feeling.[/QUOTE]Is there some other reason you have sex? Not many condom users would deny that it feels better without one. But how would one know if they've never tried it.

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1266247]Then man up and admit that this is what you want (and damn the risks) , and stop trying to justify it in other ways.[/QUOTE]Quite the opposite from saying "damn the risks", I have been pointing out ways (7 steps) to reduce the risks of BBFS, like circumcision, STD testing & not finishing inside a girl. Such ways can make one engaging in BBFS as safe as a "perfect" condom user, such as you allege to be.

[QUOTE=Chill Out; 1266247]Condoms are very strong and will not break once you know what you are doing.[/QUOTE]Have you done scientific studies on this or just speak from your alleged & extremely limited personal experience?

"Condoms may slip off the penis after ejaculation, [59] break due to improper application or physical damage (such as tears caused when opening the package) , or break or slip due to latex degradation (typically from usage past the expiration date, improper storage, or exposure to oils). The rate of breakage is between 0. 4% and 2. 3, while the rate of slippage is between 0. 6% and 1. 3. [51] Even if no breakage or slippage is observed. 1–2% of women will test positive for semen residue after intercourse with a condom. [60][61]"

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

[QUOTE=Chill Out; 1266247]Your stats do not mean anything except that some people do not use condoms correctly,[/QUOTE]The truth is the stats I quote claim that even "perfect" condom use, namely correct and consistent use of condoms, results in 2 to 3% of couples having an unwanted pregnancy per year. Ruling out miracle or virgin births, that means sperm is getting in. If it were STD or HIV infected sperm, you can imagine the consequences.

"Most probably related to the condom's efficiency in preventing the transmission HIV / AIDS and STD's is its efficiency in preventing pregnancy. The WHO explains that perfect use of the condom does not prevent pregnancy all the time. 'Estimated pregnancy rates during perfect use of condoms, that is for those who report using the method exactly as it should be used (correctly) and at every act of intercourse (consistently) , is 3 percent at 12 months'[40].""

"Indeed, pregnancy in spite of condom use is well documented, with the Pearl index placed at around 15 failures per 100 women years within the first year of use. [42] If pregnancy may occur in spite of condom use, wouldn't it be only logical to conclude that the condom also allows transmission of HIV and STD's, given that the disease-causing organisms may be present with the sperm cells, in the seminal fluid, and even elsewhere, such as on skin surfaces not covered by the condom? Moreover, one must consider that a woman can become pregnant only during her fertile days (approximately 5-8 days in a cycle, taking into account the sperm's lifespan inside her body) , while the HIV and STD's may be transmitted on any day."

[url]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html#Pregnancy[/url]

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1266247]Of course not. It's just like getting the flu.[/QUOTE]Though thousands die annually from the flu, HIV is probably worse to get but not likely to kill you as quickly, if at all.

"A 20-year-old, HIV-infected individual on treatment who is living in the USA or Canada can reasonably expect to live into his or her early 70s, which is slightly lower than the USA general average of 78 years, according to a study presented at CROI 2012. However, there were notable differences in life expectancy depending on several factors, including transmission group, race and baseline CD4+ count."

[url]http://www.thebodypro.com/content/66391/life-expectancy-increases-for-north-americans-livi.html?ic=7001[/url]

The Canadian government offers support to HIV positive parents in making babies, although there is still a risk of the child getting HIV:

"Today, in the HAART (Highly active antiretroviral treatment) era, HIV positive people are living longer, healthier lives and the risk of a child contracting HIV has been reduced to below 1 percent, leading many to consider having children."

[url]http://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/42794.html[/url]

[QUOTE=PinkPearl;1269097]Quite the opposite from saying "damn the risks", I have been pointing out ways (7 steps) to reduce the risks of BBFS, like circumcision, STD testing & not finishing inside a girl. Such ways can make one engaging in BBFS as safe as a "perfect" condom user, such as you allege to be.
[/QUOTE]

Only in Pinkpearl's world does it make you "as safe". As Wolven has pointed out, you are pretending condom users somehow go out of their way to not get STD tested, choose high mileage girls, etc etc, and so by not doing that you get to be as safe as them. None of this is true of course.


[QUOTE=PinkPearl; 1269097][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom[/url]

The truth is the stats I quote claim that even "perfect" condom use, namely correct and consistent use of condoms, results in 2 to 3% of couples having an unwanted pregnancy per year. Ruling out miracle or virgin births, that means sperm is getting in. If it were STD or HIV infected sperm, you can imagine the consequences.[/QUOTE]I'm aware of those stats but I question them because if they were true I would have 20 babies by now, and so would many of my friends.

Anyway, let's assume they are true, what you are saying is that condoms are 2-3% ineffective, and 97-98% effective. You then use those stats (2% vs 98% eg a 49x difference) to not use them.

In other words, you are using the same old "seat belts kill the passenger 2% of the time and save their life only 98% of the time, so I won't use them, instead I'll use more effective methods I read about on anti-seat-belts blogs, such as duct-taping a pillow to my steering wheel."

If it were just your life, I would say do whatever you want. But in bareback sex, you put other people's lives at risk - eg the girls. Many of them do not know any better and it's a shame to see otherwise smart foreign men try any logical loophole in the book to rationalize their stupid behavior.

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1269291]I'm aware of those stats but I question them because if they were true I would have 20 babies by now[/QUOTE]So I take it you're not very Sexually Active? LOL

[quote=wolvenvacht;1266561]condom use is still significantly better than circumcision: using a condom gives you as much chance to catch hiv in 60 years of mongering as someone being circumcised and having unprotected sex in 20 years.[/quote]i can see your pov on condom sex being "significantly better" from a safety perspective. evidently you give safety a higher priority than i do, since i feel quite comfortable with your figures for circumcised unprotected sex relative to condom use. to me it is not a significant enough loss in safety to warrant sacrificing decades or a lifetime of higher quality sex.

moreover, with the rest of the 7 safety protocols i recommend i believe one practicing bbfs with p4p tgs will be safer from hiv than the vast majority of rubber (plastic baggie) advocates who frequent the same. factor in recent std testing alone and i'd suggest that ups the safety level by at least 5 times over those who don't test their p4p partner, which is just about everyone engaging in p4p.

though if we were living back in the 1980's, or bareback sex was many times more dangerous than using a condom, then i could see myself choosing a higher safety mo (modus operandi) instead.

also i understand that, for various reasons, some guys have to opt for more safety as, for example, they may have a wife or gf waiting them back home after their pooning in los. by employing my 7 safety measures, condom using guys with so's can make themselves almost immune to hiv.

btw in other areas of my behaviour i exercise high safety standards, as in, for example, avoiding stress, illicit drugs & cigarette fumes, not driving a car or motorbike in bkk, not being overweight or frequenting fast food joints. neither am i climbing everest, engaging in extreme sports, high speed driving or sky diving, which i see no point in doing & have no interest in, unlike sex. nor am i employed as a soldier in afghanistan, a cop, fireman, or other high risk profession.

so that's the big picture as in not only safety re sex but safety re all behaviours one engages in as a whole.

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1269291]Only in Pinkpearl's world does it make you "as safe". As Wolven has pointed out, you are pretending condom users somehow go out of their way to not get STD tested, choose high mileage girls, etc etc, and so by not doing that you get to be as safe as them. None of this is true of course.[/QUOTE]I'm not aware of Wolvenvacht saying anything like that. But you appear to have missed the key point re testing, namely that the pooner is much safer if he has seen the sex worker's recent all negative STD results. Very few hobbyists have any clue of the HIV status of the P4P girls they bang, let alone take them to the hospital to be "checked out". It is plausible that this item alone could put those engaging in BBFS on a level playing field as those who use condoms religiously, perhaps even those who also use them "perfectly" everytime for decades (if such a creature even exists).

"In 2009 blood screened for HIV in Greater Accra, Ghana amounted to 33, 294 units of blood, of which 3. 68 percent was found to be HIV positive. 45 Ghana tests 100 percent of its blood donations, however this is done using only antibody tests. Therefore the window period remains a significant interval, which suggests some units may continue to pass through screening undetected.

"In October 2005, South Africa introduced NAT testing and as a result there were no cases of HIV transmission by blood transfusion reported to the haemovigilance programme, a transfusion surveillance system. 46 47

"The availability of nucleic acid tests (NAT) , which reduces the window period and makes testing much more accurate, helped to support the argument for a change in the ban against MSM donating. These tests have been found to almost eliminate the possibility that HIV infected blood will pass through the testing stage, even in countries with high prevalence. 33"

"If a person receives a blood transfusion with HIV-infected blood, there is a 95 percent risk they will become infected with the virus. 4 However the chances of becoming infected with HIV through a blood transfusion varies between countries depending on the level of safety precautions in place, and there is a notable difference between high and low-income countries. In the UK, the risk is now 1 in 5 million. 5"

[url]http://www.avert.org/blood-safety-hiv.htm[/url]

One in 5 million. This gives some idea of the HIV risk in having one act of bareback sex with an individual (aged 17 to 65) who has just had this NAT test & donated blood. Certainly it would be riskier with a FT gogo girl or streetwalker in Bangkok, but the million dollar question is, by how much. Note also that recieving HIV in blood as a donor will almost surely infect you (95 percent of the time, as stated) , whereas one act of BB sex with an infected lady is very unlikely to cause you harm (maybe 1 in 2000 chance of getting HIV). With 2. 79 percent of FSW in Thailand being HIV positive, how many times lower would that figure be for a girl who has just tested negative for NAT & STDs? Ten times? Fifty? A hundred? A thousand? Now factor that into Wolven's figures and see which is safer, using a condom with a random untested lady, or a circumcised barebacker with a TG who has just tested negative for STDs? The answer might surprise you, even with condom failure rates below 5 and approaching zero percent.

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1269291]I'm aware of those stats but I question them because if they were true I would have 20 babies by now, and so would many of my friends.[/QUOTE]It wouldn't be unusual for friends to keep secrets from each other re pregnancies & the termination of such via abortions and other means. Likewise a prostitute may not divulge this info to a client, if he happened to still be around at the time pregnancy was known to have occurred, if she even ever saw him again after they had sex together.

Moreover some people are sterile and you have to understand that everyone's results will not be the same as your experience. Unlike you, who claims to have discovered the secrets to condoms never failing, people in the real world, even those who use condoms consistently and correctly, experience them slipping, sliding off and breaking.

"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."

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1269291]Anyway, let's assume they are true, what you are saying is that condoms are 2-3% ineffective, and 97-98% effective. You then use those stats (2% vs 98% eg a 49x difference) to not use them.[/QUOTE]In the overall picture, this stat is only one of many reasons why I dislike condoms and prefer not to use a plastic baggie. I've found other ways besides latex to practice safe sex and have bareback sex at the same time. Condoms are not the only way to increase safety when having sex with another. Nor are they the best way.

"The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) , including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) , are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner."

[url]http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm[/url]

Nothing is said about plastic baggies there. Moreover the remark about abstinence is relevant in that if a person abstained enough, BBFS plus abstinence would equal a greater measure of safety than condom sex (CFS). For example a guy having condomless sex once a month will be safer than those doing it every day with condoms. Frankly, BTW, a lot of guys would rather be wanked and / or get other (lower than CFS risk) BB services like DFK, BLS & a BBBJ than try to have sex with a piece of plastic.

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1269291]In other words, you are using the same old "seat belts kill the passenger 2% of the time and save their life only 98% of the time, so I won't use them, instead I'll use more effective methods I read about on anti-seat-belts blogs, such as duct-taping a pillow to my steering wheel."[/QUOTE]My 7 steps to safer sex aren't taping a "pillow to the steering wheel". Nor are the "effective methods" in those 7 steps something I "read about on anti (condom) blogs". They are from scientific research studies, government, pro condom, and pro safe sex sources, for the most part.

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1269291]If it were just your life, I would say do whatever you want. But in bareback sex, you put other people's lives at risk. Eg the girls. Many of them do not know any better and it's a shame to see otherwise smart foreign men try any logical loophole in the book to rationalize their stupid behavior.[/QUOTE]Driving a car or motorcycle puts lives at risk. Having sex, period, with or without a condom, puts "people's lives" (or rather health) at risk. There is a whole range of risks from faithful monogamy between uninfected partners to receptive BB anal with a known HIV & STD infected heroin injecter not taking ARV meds who has a high viral load. Putting into practice the 7 steps I recommend for safer sex will make both those engaging in BBFS and boring plastic baggie sex much safer.

If you go through the trouble of testing each and every girl first, and you get yourself tested each time as well, then you are both much safer. I'll give you that.

This was the Wolven post I was referring to:

[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.

<snip>[/quote]

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1269744]If you go through the trouble of testing each and every girl first, and you get yourself tested each time as well, then you are both much safer. I'll give you that.[/QUOTE]That would be advisable for guys who are going to BB P4P TGs, especially if they are not taking other precautions and don't have advantages like circumcision.

It would be practical for those staying a brief time in Thailand, say one week, to get the lady they are going to rawdog it with tested for STDs, at least HIV anyway, if they are quite happy sticking to only one lady for the trip, or at least only one to forgoe the rubber with for vaginal penetration.

If that one girl also stayed with him the whole time, then he could guarantee she hadn't been booming anyone else or catching any STDs from them while he was in LOS.

For those staying in the Kingdom a number of months or permanently, similar principles apply. What I'll consider is BBing two TGs and have them STD tested monthly, but engage in other sexual activities (DFK, BBBJ, etc) whenever desirious of more variety.

Testing would be impractical if a guy intends to BB a lot of ladies in a short time frame, say 10 women in 3 days. If trustworthy home HIV self tests, like a 20 minute oral swab, were legal & available, it might be another story.

[QUOTE=Chill Out;1269744]This was the Wolven post I was referring to:[/QUOTE]I believe this was addressed earlier, such as in post # 1769.