Safe Sex and Sex Related Discussions in Thailand

[QUOTE=PinkPearl;1260536]Don't get me wrong, condoms are a very effective method of protection against STI's for people who are not nuns, but I just don't like them anymore. I used to, but now I'd rather watch online porn while giving myself a bareback handjob than have intercourse with a piece of latex.[/QUOTE][url]Http://www.condomelite.com/condomelitestore/catalog/pleasure-plus-lubricated-condom-by-global-protection-p30047.html[/url]

"The Pleasure Plus condom is specifically designed to enhance sensation. Pleasure Plus is a unique, patented, high-quality condom designed to enhance the pleasure of both partners. Pleasure Plus is considered by many as the best feeling condom. Pleasure Plus has a large, loose pouch of additional latex, positioned near the head and on the underside. During sex, the extra latex in the loose pouch slides back and forth against the very sensitive underside of the penis, increasing pleasure for men, while also increasing the pleasure for women."

[url]http://www.undercovercondoms.com/readuserreview.asp?ID=77[/url]

"I usually hate using condoms. They feel like doing it while trying to wear a sock. But this one almost feels like there isn't anything there at all."

"Feels like nothing at all. Woderful. Try them!"

[QUOTE=John Dough; 1276425][url]Http://www.condomelite.com/condomelitestore/catalog/pleasure-plus-lubricated-condom-by-global-protection-p30047.html[/url]

"The Pleasure Plus condom is specifically designed to enhance sensation. Pleasure Plus is a unique, patented, high-quality condom designed to enhance the pleasure of both partners. Pleasure Plus is considered by many as the best feeling condom. Pleasure Plus has a large, loose pouch of additional latex, positioned near the head and on the underside. During sex, the extra latex in the loose pouch slides back and forth against the very sensitive underside of the penis, increasing pleasure for men, while also increasing the pleasure for women."

[url]http://www.undercovercondoms.com/readuserreview.asp?ID=77[/url]

"I usually hate using condoms. They feel like doing it while trying to wear a sock. But this one almost feels like there isn't anything there at all."

"Feels like nothing at all. Woderful. Try them!"[/QUOTE]This is interesting. I would try it out myself next time! Thanks!

[QUOTE=PinkPearl; 1275143]It might be of interest to consider the relative risks re HIV, such as in the following example which uses an estimated HIV infection rate of 5 in 10, 000 (from Wikipedia) , I. E. 1 in 2000, for an uninfected male having vaginal sex with a HIV positive female. Also assumed is a 10% figure for the liklihood a randomly chosen lady or FSW (female sex worker) is infected with HIV.

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

#Transmission.

"If we take Degan's number of 1/2000, and use 10% infection in the target group (and that is probably too large, but we'll go with it) , we arrive at 13, 862. 6 sexual encounters to have a 50% probability of infection. That's a different partner every single day for about 38 years, and then it is only even money you are infected."

[url]http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/327875-the-hiv-scam/page__st__75[/url]

(ref posts 87, 89, 96)

The estimated rate of HIV in FSW in Thailand was listed as 2. 79% in the following study.

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

Using that percentage of 2. 79% the above quote would change to say:

"If we take Degan's number of 1/2000, and use 2. 79% infection in the target group, we arrive at 49600 sexual encounters to have a slightly less than 50% probability of infection. That's a different partner every single day for about 137 years, and then it is only even money you are infected."

Change that to BBFS once every other day and there is a 95% chance of not being HIV infected in 20 years. It would be 90% after 40 years & 86% for 60 years, a lifetime of being sexually active. After 200 years it would be only a 40% chance of getting HIV, but who lives that long.

Consistent condom use (CFS) that reduced the HIV risk relative to BBFS by 95% would give you a 99. 37% chance of not being infected with HIV, having CFS with SP's thrice weekly for 60 years, with a transmission rate of 1 in 2000 and a SP infected rate of 2. 79. For BBFS it would be 88, 94. 5% if circumcised.

As you can see, based on these figures alone, there is only a few percentage points separating BBFS and CFS. So they would indicate, apart from a consideration of other factors, that there is not a great amount of difference in risk between the two, during a lifetime of sex, except for the usual sensation factor absent in sex with a plastic baggie.

But how reliable are these figures, assuming the math has no mistakes? There is more to the story that would support the case that the difference between CFS & BBFS is wider than what these stats would imply. More to come later, regarding that.[/QUOTE]Moreover, BTW, even a few percentage points difference, (though not of much significance betwen two individuals, one using a condom & one not) , will have a huge impact in the big picture of hundreds of millions of people, in terms of HIV and other infections, which is what 'the powers that be' concern themselves with. So those practicing BBFS should do it safely, such as in a monogamous relationship, or with other safe sex practices, as detailed before (I. E. 9 suggested ways).

The 1 in 2000 Wikipedia estimated rate of HIV transmission could vary depending on a number of factors.

Factors that could make the HIV transmission rate higher (or more likely) are vaginal sores, STIs, high viral load,"dry sex", sex during menses (female-to-male transmission) & bleeding during sexual intercourse.

Factors that could make the transmission rate lower are the absence of those problems, male circumcision, use of commercial lubrication, less friction, HIV immunity, and HIV ARV meds minimizing the viral load.

The "presence of other STDS or vaginal / cervical abrasions increases the risk of transmission. Obviously, women with a large number of sexual partners are more likely to have these than women without. Abrasions etc are virtually an occupational hazard of sex work."

[url]http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/327875-the-hiv-scam/page__st__75[/url]

Hence the importance of those engaging in BBFS to see that a SP has recently tested negative for STDs, especially HIV (using both 1. Antibody and 2. NAT &/or p24 antigen tests).

An old (1994) study of sex workers in Thailand estimated the HIV transmission rate there was 1 in 100. It has been implied that may have been due to such things as an absence of male circumcision & the presence of STDs which increase the liklihood of HIV transmission. Some research has questioned the validity of the Thai study.

"The sharply increased infectivity reported among female sex workers' clients in an Asian setting may reflect differences by disease stage, as the infectivity study (33) conducted in Asia took place at the start of the epidemic when a large proportion of index cases were in early stages of infection (33, 34). The elevated infectivity in the Asian study also may reflect unmeasured STI co-factor effects, as a large proportion of sex worker index cases were infected with STIs during the study period (67)."

[url]http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fulltext/1996/04010/Probability_of_Heterosexual_Transmission_of_HIV_.10.aspx[/url]

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7904668[/url]

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744983/[/url]

A number of studies came up with estimates of 1 in 1000. A later (2008) report analyzed previous research on this topic & warned that the 1 in 1000 figure may be too high. Yet a recent (2010) study of couples found 1 infection per 2200 (5 in 11, 000) acts of BBFS with those known to be HIV positive. No infections resulted from 7000 thousand BBFS encounters with HIV infected individuals on ARV drugs.

"Our findings suggest that in many contexts – particularly in the absence of male circumcision or in the presence of STIs, anal sex, or early or late infection – the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1 may exceed the commonly cited value of 0·001 (1 in 1000) by more than an order of magnitude."

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

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744983/[/url]

As to the percentage of HIV infected SP's I think it likely that those SP's who engage in BBFS often are probably going to have a higher rate of HIV & STD infections than SP's in general. So the general rate of an estimated 2. 79% of infected FSW in Thailand is probably higher amongst those who offer BBFS than those who refuse this service. Consequently the above calculations based on 2. 79% for BBFS are inaccurate and should be recalculated at a higher percentage.

Amongst those engaging in BBFS with SP's, a lower (vs higher) millage SP would probably be safer. As would a first world vs third world SP. An SP who allows anal sex, even with a condom, is also high risk relative to those who don't, since even covered Greek appears to be about as risky as BBFS.

In conclusion, sex with or without condoms, especially BBFS, may not as safe for individuals as certain stats may imply, hence additional safety practices are recommended for personal safety as well as for your partner & the community as a whole.

FDA panel endorses pill to prevent HIV infection.

CHICAGO. Condoms and other safe-sex practices accomplished only so much. Now the 30-year battle against AIDS is on the verge of a radical new phase, with the government expected to endorse a once-a-day pill to prevent infection with the virus.

Some doctors already are giving patients the drug, Truvada, to ward off infection. But Food and Drug Administration approval would expand that practice and could make the expensive medicine more affordable. Truvada costs $11, 000-$14, 000 a year.

The lifetime cost of treating one person diagnosed with the AIDS virus has been estimated at more than $600, 000.

Approval seems likely after an FDA advisory panel endorsed the use of Truvada for prevention Thursday.

"With this recommendation, we're nearing a watershed moment in our fight against HIV," said James Loduca, a spokesman for the San Francisco AIDS Foundation."We know this isn't a magic bullet, and it's not going to be the right prevention strategy for everyone, but it could save thousands of lives in the United States and potentially millions around the world."

Since 2004, Truvada has been FDA-approved for treating people infected with AIDS. Once a drug is on the market, doctors are free to prescribe it for off-label, or unapproved, uses, and that's what some have been doing in giving Truvada to patients who are healthy but in danger of getting the virus from their partners or through risky sex.

Official FDA backing of the practice would allow Truvada's maker, Gilead Sciences of Foster City, Calif, to market it for prevention. Approval probably would spur many more insurance companies to pay for the drug. And widening the market for Truvada could prompt Gilead to lower the price.

An FDA decision is expected by June 15.

In one USA government study of more than 1, 200 men and women in Botswana, Truvada lowered the HIV infection risk about 78. Another larger study in Africa found a slightly lower rate of effectiveness, but researchers say that if used as directed, the pill can be 90% effective or higher.

An estimated 1. 2 million Americans and millions more around the world have HIV. Unless the virus is treated with antiviral drugs, it can turn into full-blown AIDS. Antivirals made the disease more manageable and allowed patients to live much longer than when the epidemic began in the early 1980s.

Nevertheless, about 50, 000 new infections are diagnosed in the USA each year, a number that has held steady for about 15 years.

Truvada represents "a pretty radical step, but I think it's a necessary step," said Dr. Lisa Sterman of San Francisco, who treats HIV patients. She prescribes the drug to infected patients and those who are healthy but at risk.

"We've come as far as we can with condom use and safe-sex strategies."

The FDA also is considering approving the first over-the-counter HIV test for use at home.

FDA reviewers said Friday that the OraQuick In-Home HIV test could play a significant role in slowing the spread of HIV, according to briefing documents posted online. But they also raised concerns about the accuracy of the test, a mouth swab that returns results in about 20 minutes.

Public health experts estimate one-fifth of the 1. 2 million HIV carriers in the USA. About 240, 000 people. Are not aware they are infected.

[url]http://www.freep.com/article/20120512/NEWS07/205120367/FDA-panel-endorses-pill-to-prevent-HIV-infection?odyssey=mod[/url]

|mostview

[QUOTE=PinkPearl; 1273536]I'm wondering where your "transmission rate of 38 in 10000" comes from. Was the Wikipedia number not 1 in 2000?

Also, how are you calculating your numbers. Is there on online source that you could refer me to, or a calculator to plug the figures in?

Finally, I was curious if you agreed with this math:

"If we take Degan's number of 1/2000, and use 10% infection in the target group (and that is probably too large, but we'll go with it) , we arrive at 13, 862. 6 sexual encounters to have a 50% probability of infection. That's a different partner every single day for about 38 years, and then it is only even money you are infected."

It seems that your 40 year rate has about the same percentage of 53, but is based on sex thrice weekly, whereas this calculation speaks of doing it "every single day".[/QUOTE]Hi PinkPearl,

Just got back from the Land of Smiles and only now saw your comments. And yes, I only had protected sex. Even with my Thai girlfriend.

38 in 10000 is about 1 in 2500, so not that much different to your 1 in 2000. These statistics are anyhow very "rough" and if you hunt around you will find many different ones and rarely if ever a link to the raw data so you can check the stats.

Calculations are easy, if you calculate the chance to stay healthy (rather than the risk to catch HIV).

Let's go with your example:

1 in 2000 with a 10% infection rate is a chance to catch something of 1/20000, or 0. 00005. In other words you have 0. 99995 chance to remain healthy each time you make love. If you fuck two times, your chances to remain healthy are 0. 99995 x 0. 99995; for three times it is 0. 99995 x 0. 99995 x 0. 99995; etc. So the formula is 0. 99995 xx k with "k" being the number of times you made love and "xx" meaning "to the power of".

If you want to know how many times you can fuck before you reach a certain "risk threshold", you just have to solve the equation "chance-to-stay-healthy = 0. 99995 xx k" for the value of k. Using some basic math skills I remember, it goes as follows: "k = log (chance-to-stay-healthy) /log (0. 99995)". And indeed for a "chance-to-stay-healthy" of 0. 5, you will have to make love 13862. 6 times. Of course, I would never go for such a low chance.

If you do not want to run a risk of more than 10% of catching something, then you reach that after about 2100 sessions, or about 13 years at a steady rate of 3 sessions a week. If you want to stay really safe, and not have more than 1% risk, you exceed that already in little over one year of "3 a week" unprotected sessions.

To appreciate the difference between this calculation and my previous one: the previous one used a "chance-to-stay-healthy" of 0. 99989398 per sex act and this one (based upon 1 in 2000 transmission rate and 10% infected sex workers) of 0. 99995. The difference might seem small, but is significant.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1282293]38 in 10000 is about 1 in 2500, so not that much different to your 1 in 2000. These statistics are anyhow very "rough" and if you hunt around you will find many different ones and rarely if ever a link to the raw data so you can check the stats.[/QUOTE]Surly you've made some mistake here? 38 in 10000 would be roughly 10 in 2500 (or 9. 5 in 2500, to be exact).

[QUOTE=Werqweq;1282508]Surly you've made some mistake here? 38 in 10000 would be roughly 10 in 2500 (or 9. 5 in 2500, to be exact).[/QUOTE]Oops, you are right. Jetlag has still paralysed my brain it seems.

HIV is not a huge problem anywhere in the western world wherever public health policy gives free treatment for usual STD's, most of the western world does that with the exception of America. The chances of HIV transmission thru vaginal sex is very very low. If you want to go banging boys and hanging around back doors and druggies you are asking for it. HIV started out as GRID, Gay Related Imune Deficiency, it had to become a heterosexual problem purely to get government funding. So, if you want to get started on being part of the first world on STD prevention back President O Bummer's health policy. It's plain stupid that it costs hundreds of dollars to get the clap treated in the USA when the pathology and drugs are worth peanuts. In Australia it costs $70 to see the doctor, the pathology is about the same fro a VDRL, the drugs are less than $30, and you get back about $60 from Medicare, that's why we have very little STD's around, including HIV. There has never been a documented case of female to male transmission in Australia of HIV where no other risk group was part of the equation.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1282293]Just got back from the Land of Smiles and only now saw your comments. And yes, I only had protected sex. Even with my Thai girlfriend.[/QUOTE]Welcome back to the civilized world! By your user name I am guessing Germany. I was wondering what had become of you, & being in LOS was one possibility that crossed my mind. From a trip report you posted recently it seems that you had some good times.

By "protected sex" I assume you refer to using a latex condom for penetrating a female vagina with a penis, I. E. CFS. Although this could refer also to other things such as oral sex wth a condom as in a CBJ (condom blow job) or to performing oral sex on a woman, I. E. DATY, with various types of barriers, etc. One time a TG even employed "protection" (I. E. A condom) with me for BL!

Of course one is not really "protected" during CFS, in the sense that nothing can go wrong, since while condoms increase safety against STIs & pregnancy, they do so imperfectly & only to a certain degree, even when used correctly. Perfect condom use will result in 1 in 50 couples having one pregnancy per year, without other means of birth control. Real world use of condoms has a pregnancy rate of at least 10% per year.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1282293]38 in 10000 is about 1 in 2500, so not that much different to your 1 in 2000. These statistics are anyhow very "rough" and if you hunt around you will find many different ones and rarely if ever a link to the raw data so you can check the stats.[/QUOTE]The 38 in 10, 000 is close to 1 in 260, so is different from 1 in 2000 by a factor of almost 8.

Re statistics on the rate of transmission my research into studies usually found a transmission rate in the range of 1 in 1000 to 1 in 2200 or more (reference posts 1817 & 1820, this thread).

Obviously the rate of transmission affects both condom users & those who don't use condoms, so whatever the rate it should be equally effect either method, agreed?

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht; 1282293]Calculations are easy, if you calculate the chance to stay healthy (rather than the risk to catch HIV).

Let's go with your example:

1 in 2000 with a 10% infection rate is a chance to catch something of 1/20000, or 0. 00005. In other words you have 0. 99995 chance to remain healthy each ime you make love. If you fuck two times, your chances to remain healthy are 0. 99995 x 0. 99995; for three times it is 0. 99995 x 0. 99995 x 0. 99995; etc.

So the formula is 0. 99995 xx k with "k" being the number of times you made love and "xx" meaning "to the power of".

If you want to know how many times you can fuck before you reach a certain "risk threshold", you just have to solve the equation "chance-to-stay-healthy = 0. 99995 xx k" for the value of k. Using some basic math skills I remember, it goes as follows: "k = log (chance-to-stay-healthy) /log (0. 99995)". And indeed for a "chance-to-stay-healthy" of 0. 5, you will have to make love 13862. 6 times. Of course, I would never go for such a low chance.[/QUOTE]Thank you for this explanation. It apparently confirms what I seem to have figured out from your earlier posts on this subject, as in my calculations in post # 1817 from this thread, using the same method of calculation as you used. To quote myself from post 1817:

[QUOTE=]The estimated rate of HIV in FSW in Thailand was listed as 2. 79% in the following study.

[url]http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysi._report_en.pdf[/url]

Using that percentage of 2. 79% the above quote would change to say:

"If we take Degan's number of 1/2000, and use 2. 79% infection in the target group, we arrive at 49600 sexual encounters to have a slightly less than 50% probability of infection. That's a different partner every single day for about 137 years, and then it is only even money you are infected."

Change that to BBFS once every other day and there is a 95% chance of not being HIV infected in 20 years. It would be 90% after 40 years & 86% for 60 years, a lifetime of being sexually active. After 200 years it would be only a 40% chance of getting HIV, but who lives that long.

Consistent condom use (CFS) that reduced the HIV risk relative to BBFS by 95% would give you a 99. 37% chance of not being infected with HIV, having CFS with SP's thrice weekly for 60 years, with a transmission rate of 1 in 2000 and a SP infected rate of 2. 79. For BBFS it would be 88, 94. 5% if circumcised.

As you can see, based on these figures alone, there is only a few percentage points separating BBFS and CFS. So they would indicate, apart from a consideration of other factors, that there is not a great amount of difference in risk between the two, during a lifetime of sex, except for the usual sensation factor absent in sex with a plastic baggie.[/QUOTE]However, as pointed out in post 1820, since the target group for BBFS is more risky than for CFS, BBFS is more risky than these figures would suggest. Unless BBFS incorporates other safety protocols, like HIV or STI testing or other measures [in 9 steps] I've recommended. SBBFS monogamy, between you and a P4P TG, who has tested negative for HIV, should come close to the figures mentioned above, and provide a high degree of safety, even higher than correct and consistent condom use.

[QUOTE=PinkPearl;1283225]Welcome back to the civilized world! By your user name I am guessing Germany.[/QUOTE]Not correct but close enough.

[QUOTE=PinkPearl;1283225]By "protected sex" I assume you refer to using a latex condom for penetrating a female vagina with a penis, I. E. CFS.[/QUOTE]Yes, that was what I had in mind.

[QUOTE=PinkPearl;1283225]Of course one is not really "protected" during CFS, in the sense that nothing can go wrong, since while condoms increase safety against STIs & pregnancy, they do so imperfectly & only to a certain degree, even when used correctly.[/QUOTE]Nothing is certain in this world. Hence the risk management calculations we have both made.

[QUOTE=PinkPearl;1283225]Obviously the rate of transmission affects both condom users & those who don't use condoms, so whatever the rate it should be equally effect either method, agreed?[/QUOTE]All other things remaining equal, I agree.

[QUOTE=PinkPearl;1283225]However, as pointed out in post 1820, since the target group for BBFS is more risky than for CFS, BBFS is more risky than these figures would suggest. Unless BBFS incorporates other safety protocols, like HIV or STI testing or other measures [in 9 steps] I've recommended. SBBFS monogamy, between you and a P4P TG, who has tested negative for HIV, should come close to the figures mentioned above, and provide a high degree of safety, even higher than correct and consistent condom use.[/QUOTE]Your method indeed reduces the risks, but personally I find it impractical as in the P4P scene I like the variety and rarely if ever go twice with the same girl. Think of the logistics of arranging a BB threesome at the Eden Club with your method, just for the "fun" of not having to use a condom. I only had 12 hours in BKK last time I was there (and that included going from the airport and back)

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1283248]Your method indeed reduces the risks, but personally I find it impractical as in the P4P scene I like the variety and rarely if ever go twice with the same girl. Think of the logistics of arranging a BB threesome at the Eden Club with your method, just for the "fun" of not having to use a condom. I only had 12 hours in BKK last time I was there (and that included going from the airport and back)[/QUOTE]I don't know if BBFS is even available from any ladies at Eden Club, or if the workers there are even tested for STIs, or if customers could see the test results.

I've read Annies offers customers to see such & their employees are regularly tested for STIs. But, again, I have no idea if any sex workers there offer BBFS to any of their clientele. I've never asked for it, although I have recieved BBBJ service there, which is, I think, quite common in Bangkok. I believe Annies has even advertised BBBJ as an item on their menu.

My usual MO with street walkers (SWs) is to choose a girl I like and find out about her willingness to forego the latex after we're already in bed in my hotel room. IME it is a coin flip whether she will give it up or not, and hot SYT are just as likely to as others. But MPs, beer bars, gogos, other FLs besides SWs, & good girls, etc, may be another story.

[QUOTE=]Wow. 19% amongst freelance sex workers.

Use a condom. Why take a chance?[/QUOTE]Either way, condom or not, there's always "a chance" of being infected with HIV having sex with SP's (sex providers).

For insertive penile to vaginal intercourse:

1. Without a condom, maybe 1 in 50, 000 chance each time.

2. Without a condom + circumcised, maybe 1 in 250, 000 chance.

3. With a condom + not circumcised, maybe 1 in 500, 000 chance.

4. Without a condom + recently HIV (An / Ab) tested negative, maybe 1 in a million chance.

5. Without a condom in a monogamous relationship with a "good TG", maybe 1 in 500, 000 chance.

6. With a condom in a monogamous relationship with a "good TG", maybe 1 in 5 million chance.

7. Add recent HIV (An / Ab) testing to the above 2 & you're virtually like one who's immune to HIV.

8. Wank off alone at home to porn, basicly no chance of HIV infection.

9. W / O condom + SP & client agree to not go without latex with anyone else, IOW BBFS monogamy, maybe a 1 in 250, 000 chance.

10. Add recent negative HIV (An / Ab) testing to # 9 & it's maybe a 1 in 2 million chance.

Add anal sex, with & especially without a condom, to any of the above & risk goes way up.

Forgoe insertive genital intercourse & substitite HJ, CBJ, BBBJ, DATY, DFK, titty fuc_k, BLS, BBPS, anal licking, mutual masturbation, etc, instead & your safety level goes way up.

All the stats are real interesting but the fact is 95% of dudes going to Pattaya are wanting BB.

I know most on here say they glove up. ?

How do I know this. Because I ask the girls. There answer always goes "I usually use condom (which is a lie) but every man want without".

I have asked many, many Beach Road SW's, MP girls, Soi 6 you name it.

Men do not care about the stats. Even if it was 1 in 10 chance, I bet BB would be the penetration of choice. Dudes want their dick nice and wet in warm Thai pussy. That is why they go to these places.

[QUOTE=PinkPearl; 1284429]2. Without a condom + circumcised, maybe 1 in 250, 000 chance.

3. With a condom + not circumcised, maybe 1 in 500, 000 chance.[/QUOTE]I think you got those two mixed up.

[QUOTE=David_33;1285749]I think you got those two mixed up.[/QUOTE]Why would you say that?