Safe Sex and Sex Related Discussions in Thailand

Well I just spent to many drunken nights with girls and became reckless in not using condoms all the time. I think I now have made the biggest mistake in my life. I do not have any stds, but I now have a gland infection in my pelvis area near the groin. I am afraid that this is the first sign of hiv infection. Does any body know if I can buy an orasure or any other kind of at home hiv/aids test kit in bkk or pattaya?

Also does anybody know what is Thai policy regarding testing at a clinic? If I am hiv positive, will I be registered as a carrier? Will it be listed on my entry through passport control? Thanks for any information, from scared and stupid.

That is not an early sign of HIV infection, it could be anything.

Just go to a good hospital, have them test you (use a fake name if you must), and then worry about the results afterwards.

If you've gone bareback more than a few times you have probably also caught (and spread) Chlamydia, which is often asymptomatic. But this is easily treated with a short course of antibiotics.

Report your symptoms to a doctor, and let the professionals work out what has caused the infection instead of jumping to conclusions. Be 100% honest with the doctors, they may frown disapprovingly but there is no point keeping secrets from them.

If you simply take a blood-test for HIV you'll still have the infection (and whatever else you may have picked up), whatever the HIV results.

Good luck.

In Victorian Britain, the high society believed that if you were infected with some STD's, the only effective cure was to have unprotected sex with a virgin, so that she would get the disease and the infected man would be clean again.

The effectiveness of this procedure was disappointing, though.

Seriously, as Coma Boy wisely advised, go to a real doctor, get yourself examined and get treated on the spot.

I would not worry too much about HIV if I were you. There are lots of nasty things that can be sexually acquired, especially when engaging into unprotected intercourse with promiscuous sex providers, but hardly anything that modern drugs cannot treat. It can be very unpleasant and even downright painful, but you will survive.

Act now.

[QUOTE=Bonsuk]Well I just spent to many drunken nights with girls and became reckless in not using condoms all the time.


First off good luck with the AIDS test. When you say you were reckless in not using condoms, did you pressure the Thai girls to not use them or did you just forget? I thought all TG's were pretty insistant on using condoms.

I hope things work out for you.

Regards Horatio

[QUOTE=Horatio]I thought all TG's were pretty insistent on using condoms.[/QUOTE]Not as insistent as they should be. I'd say about 4/10 are ready to go without protection. I am often the one insisting.

Let me cut and paste a previous post of mine on this:

It is very easy to have condomless sex in Thailand, for many reasons:

1. many girls do not care much, it is in their mentality to be fatalistic and fun-loving.
2. if you go to MPs that cater to the Asian market, condom use is not so frequent, as many Asian men do not want to use it. (They seem to believe AIDS is a Farang thing, that is why many such places are Asian only).
3. Girls can be carried away by the moment and lose sight of whether you use a condom or not.
4. if you are with a girl for some time, she will easily consider that she is your GF, and in their mind GF sex is condomless. "Some time" might mean several days, or just the second shot of the first encounter.

For all those reasons, you should never count on the girl to be the one enforcing safe sex. You are in charge, and you need to be strong enough to use condoms in all circumstances, because the choice is often entirely yours. Or else, you are into risk management area ...

Bonsuk, if you've "just spent" all those wild nights then the odds that what you're seeing is HIV are basically nil. It could be any number of things, and if what you're seeing is an infected prostrate those could include gonorrhoea, chlamydia, candida or a huge number of other things, either STD related or not. None of those is going to get you put on any list in LOS, and most types are treated with antibiotics or steriods and alpha-blockers.

But don't spend time worrying -- get checked out and get it dealt with. And then let folks here know what's what, so we can all learn from your experience.

Bonsuk,

Early signs of HIV (Primary infection) are flu like symtoms like sudden high fever, muscle ache and in some cases a skin rash. That occurs within a few days after the infection, in about 60 - 80 % of the cases, but disappears again after 5 - 10 days. And - sorry to say that - swollen glands CAN occur during the primary infection, too. But this symptom can occur with MANY different kinds of infections, which are easy to treat. And - many people do not experience any syptoms of a Primary Infection, so you can only be sure about it if you make a test.

On the other hand - the chance that you got infected with HIV is close to zero, if we talk about "a few nights", and if you have no open wounds / small fissures at your penis, which increases the risk dramatically.

There are Antigen tests available, which can check on the virus approx. 10 days to 2 weeks after the initial event. This tests are expensive, but I recommend to spend that money because the antibody tests will only give you results 6 weeks to 3 months after the infection. That time period will drive you crazy, you will experience mental stress in a way you never experienced before.

Pattaya International Hospital - go there and make a test, immediately.

Use condoms from now on, to protect the girls - and to protect US.

Whatever the outcome is - the HIV infection is nowadays NOT a death sentance any more. You will have to take a cocktail of medicaments all your life, change your life style (alcohol, smoking) and you will only have protected sex, if you care about others. But the average life expectation for newly HIV-infected people is rising every year, and many infected people will live their normal life and die of a heart attack one day, as other non-infected people too.

Good luck to you.


Giotto

Study Says Circumcision Reduces AIDS Risk by 70%

Here are the first two paragraphs from an article posted by the July 5 Wall Street Journal Online.

In a potentially major breakthrough in the campaign against AIDS, French and South African researchers have apparently found that male circumcision reduces by about 70% the risk that men will contract HIV through intercourse with infected women.

Other than abstinence and safer sex, almost nothing has been proved to reduce the sexual spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. World-wide, the major route of HIV transmission for many years has been heterosexual sex.

sorry to disappoint but this kind of bullshit has been floating around for years. for over 100 years, all kinds of quacks have been promoting circumcision to cure everything from speech impediments to the clap and now hiv.
the key thing about cut v uncut is it allows these idiots measure, compare and contrast, and then to write idiotic papers, go to conferences, get money for more "research" and go to conferences to bareback skanks. papers have been appearing on hiv and circumcision for over 10 years just as they previously appeared on other hot topics of days gone by.

the japanese are generally uncut as are the south koreans. they have very low hiv rates. importantly, americans' cut rate is around 50% so it is easy to get groups of cut and uncut and look for significant differences in infection rates between them. (cut junkies v uncut).

in africa, muslims tend to be uncut but cleaner in hygiene and more prone to keep their dicks in their pants. also, it can be difficult to tell who is cut, uncut or half cut (in africa).

bottom line: it was probably a quiet day at the wsg. nonsense like that should be beneath them. i make this post as it might save someone reading it from believing having a cut dick will save them if they fuck a hiv ridden skank/whatever.
cold advice like this is needed when we see some of the bullshit recently written both here and in the wsg.

love, peace and death.
that should read wsj;)

Agreed. This report (on WSJ) is crap, and dangerous. You can have microscopic lesions on your foreskin the same way you can have lesions on the head or base of your penis. Circumsision won't protect you at all. Let's not all go cutting off our tips and think we are protected. We are not. We are messing around in a dangerous hobby, and this report is going to convince some idiot who is circumsised that he is safe and he will go out and have unprotected sex with some beach road skank and get sick. Then he will say "But I am circumsised! I thought I was protected!" Use your brains, everyone. Wrap it up before you stick it in.

That circumcision report is dangerous nonsense. I don't really want to comment on that study; anybody who knows a little bit about that virus and the way it enters into the body will not even start a serious discussion about that study.

Even from the simple mathematical point of view it should not have any impact on our sexual behavior and the necessity for safe sex. The mentioned risk reduction still leaves us with that remaining 30 % ... so what does it help?

Breakthrough? A breakthrough would be the development of a vaccine, or a medicament which can destroy the virus in infected bodies. These are the fields serious scientists are doing research in.

Giotto

Gentlemen

My stance on practicing safe sex is well documented on the WSG Board. I am not advocating unprotected sexual intercourse.

The Wall Street Journal is not the National Enquirer or similar to any other tabloid publication, but one of the most highly respected newspapers in the world. They don't print trash or crap. Before you lambaste the article I informed you of, I suggest you read it in its entirety.

Personally, after reading about the study, I feel safer indulging in our dangerous pastime because I practice safe sex and am also circumcised.

Read my post in the photo section in the Philippines about WHO/CDC, the Times is no better, they've had their source problems, articles can be total bullcrap.

[QUOTE=Ralph Kramden]Gentlemen

My stance on practicing safe sex is well documented on the WSG Board. I am not advocating unprotected sexual intercourse.

The Wall Street Journal is not the National Enquirer or similar to any other tabloid publication, but one of the most highly respected newspapers in the world. They don't print trash or crap. Before you lambaste the article I informed you of, I suggest you read it in its entirety.

Personally, after reading about the study, I feel safer indulging in our dangerous pastime because I practice safe sex and am also circumcised.[/QUOTE]

reduces the chances of contracting HIV.

The study is considered significant because scientists have yet to discover an effective vaccine against the HIV virus or develop a reliable way to prevent infection other than through abstinence or safe-sex practices.

[b][u]Previous studies have linked circumcision with increased HIV infection.[/u][/b]

While these medical results--if they're published [b]and validated[/b]--may help some parents decide whether to have their baby boys circumcised, conservatives face a dilemma about what to do: [i][b]on the one hand, the story's in the Wall Street Journal; but on the other, the study was conducted by the French.[/i][/b]

Can you imagine what Americans would do if a group of foreigners blew into town and tried to round up 3,000 men to be randomly circumcised? But then, South Africa IS a country where people actually believe you can prevent HIV by having sex with an infant, so go figure."