To be honest, they all feel tight to me, Peter.
Printable View
To be honest, they all feel tight to me, Peter.
[QUOTE=Petemcc] I have fucked many women without a condom... one of whom was my own mother-in-law, who had given birth. Not as tight as one could wish, but I got off, and enjoyed it... [/QUOTE]Hey, I remember seeing you and your two lovers fighting it out on the Jerry Springer show.
PS - Your mother-in-law had given birth? Really? Think about it.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
I started the report with a clear introduction, that all content of the report is my personal opinion, my personal norm to evaluate risks.
...
During the last weeks then the risk factors were target of the discussion. I see no use to argue about that, because I was writing about my personal risk assessment. Others will have a different risk assessment.
...
I find it quite difficult to misunderstand all that, but obviously it is possible.
[/QUOTE]
Giotto,
yes, you stated that the report contains your personal opinion but you simply forget what signals you are sending out to others.
Some in here - especially newbies - who may also be guests at your place may see you as an experienced monger who knows his shit. When being in a situation in which they have to decide to do certain sex practices or to even go bareback or not they may remember your risk assessment in which you clearly state that a younger girl is less risky than an older one and a gogo girl poses a smaller risk than a bar girl, who again poses a smaller risk than a freelancer.
Since they have met their girls in a gogo or even found them at your (hopefully controlled) place, they may rate the involved risk lower than it actually is due to your risk assessment.
Sure, it will be their decision but based on your risk assessment as they put some trust in you.
This is the reason why I think your risk assessment is dangerous as it seduces people and makes them believe that there is a way to rate the involved risks by simply looking at a few attributes of the girl.
You should know that there is no way to tell that one person poses a higher risk than another one. And that's the reason why you still avoid to answer my simple question in which I only combined two of your named factors.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
I discussed the issue with many of our hotel guests, and I know that a huge number (the majority) sometimes go bareback. I know the questions where to perform tests, after a guest gets carried away during a session. I know what the guests want when they ask me whether our girls are tested or not. I saw the fear in the faces of so many guys who lost control in the night before. All that is so human…
[/QUOTE]
Do I have to add anything, don't you just confirm my above concerns ?
[QUOTE=Giotto]
And as soon as there are clear indications of possible infections (eg. skin lesions) I even will not have protected sex with that woman/girl.
[/QUOTE]
What better indication for an infection do you need than swollen lymph nodess ?
But you still fuck a girl with swollen lymph nodes.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
- Lymph Nodes: Swollen lymph nodes in the groin, under the arms, behind the lower jaw, cervix ?
----> If I find knots there – no contact with any body fluid, no oral sex!
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Giotto]
- Smell: Vaginal odor after finger probe from deep inside?
----> If yes – no contact with any body fluid, no oral sex!
[/QUOTE]
Additionally, anybody who follows your "check" scheme will put himself at great danger by putting his unprotected finger into her (eventually bloody) pussy. You say that you will avoid any contact with any body fluids. Hmm, didn't you already had contact with body fluids by sticking your finger DEEP inside her ? It's like putting your hand into a fire to check if it's still burning. But we already had that, didn't we ?
[QUOTE=Giotto]
... The discussion went then so far that there was even statements that you can get infected via the normal unbroken skin (non-mucous membrane), ...
[/QUOTE]
Hmm, haven't seen that. Please provide the source.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
Combination of risks: There were examples of risks which were balancing each other (old/young combined with Freelancing/Beer Bar/Gogo Bar etc), and there were examples of mixed activities (Freelancing Gogo girls). Or course, that is what a risk assessment is all about, to evaluate those singe risks components and somehow get to a result, in which all risk factors are added up to one single number. Scale the risk factors based on what you personally think is an important one, evaluate them – and get a number/level. And this number then can be compared to your own personal maximum risk number/level you want to take.
[/QUOTE]
Funny, now you hide your answer by saying those two factors are balancing each other, or in other words the risk that a young bargirl poses to you is equal to that of an older gogo girl.
OK, so age and workplace are equal factors. But what if the gogo girl also can be found freelancing at the Beergarden while the bargirl does not do freelancing. Wouldn't it lead to the conclusion - completely based on your risk assessment rules - that the young bar girl actually poses a smaller risk than the older freelancing gogo girl ?
You see, those risk assessments based on a few attributes are completely useless because you don't know shit about the girls.
I personally believe that your whole risk assessment is complete crap and that you don't follow your own decision matrix. Do you really think about all those attributes ? If you would, you would only target young, attractive, well educated, [b]sexually disinterested[/b], wealthy regulars who originate from Central Thailand and who you found in a High Class Club. They pose the least risk and therefore allow you to get the most satisfaction as the smaller risk allows you to perform certain sex practices besides being less concerned during sex which could kill the whole thing.
I rather follow Pete and believe men - me included - choose women simply by their looks and attitude. If she is cute and nice you want to fuck her, no matter where she comes from, how old, educated or wealthy she is or where you found her.
We pick who we pick and should be as careful as we can, never believing or assuming that one may be less risky than another as it could make us uncareful. Your above story about your guests speaks volumes about it.
[QUOTE=The Traveler]Giotto,
yes, you stated that the report contains your personal opinion but you simply forget what signals you are sending out to others. [/QUOTE]The Traveler,
the signal I send is mentioned in the first chapters of my report, not quoted by you:
[QUOTE=Giotto]All these arguments cannot be used to justify the avoidance of using condoms. [b]Condoms have to be used in any case, and under any circumstances.[/b] [/QUOTE]
I think that readers/mongers/newbies reading this free of any fighting history Giotto/The Traveller will understand the message and intention of that report very well.
[QUOTE=The Traveler]What better indication for an infection do you need than swollen lymph nodess ?
But you still fuck a girl with swollen lymph nodes. [/QUOTE]I answered:
[QUOTE=Giotto]----> If I find knots there – no contact with any body fluid, no oral sex! [/QUOTE]I think the answer is OK, but I agree – better send her home untouched, if you want to eliminate risk.
[QUOTE=The Traveler]Hmm, haven't seen that. Please provide the source. [/QUOTE]Infection risk via normal skin. Your post:
[URL]http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=504660[/URL]
That time you provided the following statement:
[QUOTE=The Traveler]…
It's also not impossible for the HIV virus to pass through normal skin. It's only harder due to the callus on the surface, but not impossible.
… [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Traveler]Funny, now you hide your answer by saying those two factors are balancing each other, or in other words the risk that a young bargirl poses to you is equal to that of an older gogo girl. [/QUOTE]Hide? Why? That’s simply mathematics, that risk factors can balance each other…depending on the personal evaluation of each risk.
[QUOTE=The Traveler]OK, so age and workplace are equal factors. [/QUOTE]I did not say that. I think you misunderstood this structure of the report all the time. It is up to your risk assessment which factor you evaluate higher. If you think the age is more significant as a factor than the workplace/site than you evaluate it accordingly. If you think it is not a real risk factor set your evaluation to zero, and it disappears. Decision matrix!
[QUOTE=The Traveler]But what if the gogo girl also can be found freelancing at the Beergarden while the bargirl does not do freelancing. Wouldn't it lead to the conclusion - completely based on your risk assessment rules - that the young bar girl actually poses a smaller risk than the older freelancing gogo girl ? [/QUOTE]In my risk assessment I would always assume the highest risk option for a single risk factor (workplace is the factor in this case, age is a second factor, to be evaluated separately) - freelancing would cause a high risk assumption.
[QUOTE=The Traveler]...Do you really think about all those attributes ? If you would, you would only target young, attractive, well educated, [b]sexually disinterested[/b], wealthy regulars who originate from Central Thailand and who you found in a High Class Club. They pose the least risk and therefore allow you to get the most satisfaction as the smaller risk allows you to perform certain sex practices besides being less concerned during sex which could kill the whole thing.[/QUOTE]In saying [b]"They pose the least risk"[/b] you somehow confirm to have performed the same thing I was writing about: [b]A Risk Assessment[/b] :) .
Come on man, seams to me that we both want the same thing, but we go different ways. We both use condoms, don't we?
-----
Oh, that reminds me, you did not answer MY questions :) :
[b]"Finally: Back to the risk assessments.
I would be interested in clear statements about personal behaviors. Who has never taken any risk during a P4P session? That means: Never touched a pussy (because of possible cuts in a finger), never got a BBBJ, never had sex without a condom, never eaten a pussy, always successfully avoided to get into any contact with the body fluid of a woman, etc. etc. …"[/b]
???
Giotto
There are pages and pages of argument here about risk etc, but the bottom line is both Giotto and Traveller are right.
Giotto is right in the sense that certain girls are a different risk than others, it is all a matter of statistics and we to an extent live our lives to them, but I really cannot see why anyone would risk there lives by stats. We could all arugue to we are blue in the face about what those risks are and what percentage risk a fresh faced gogo girl has compared to a freelancer so I really cannot see the point to it. Trav and others are right in this sense that we should all be covering up and not fooling ourselves that we will be ok simply because we have choosen someone from a lower risk group. Sure the chances might be lower, but the chance is still there.
But the bottom line is there is a risk, there is a risk from the freelancers, the bargirls, the gogo girls, the officer girls and even our own ladies, including wives at home. For mine even if the risk of getting something off the 18yo gogo girl who has been working for a week is only 1% then that is 1% too much. The only risk I would take is with a women I loved and trusted who I was in a long term manogomous relationship with. At the moment I don't have that, if I did I wouldn't be punting.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
I think that readers/mongers/newbies reading this free of any fighting history Giotto/The Traveller will understand the message and intention of that report very well.
[/QUOTE]
Giotto,
whatever history we may have, my criticism is solely based on your report and I solely stick to what you have said, nothing more, nothing less.
Additionally I don't have any dislike in you as a person, I am not your enemy but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with you on everything you say and shout "hurray" each time you post something.
Stating that it can be determined that one person poses a higher risk than another one is bad advice, simply because we can't and it is misleading. It may lead to a point where people believe that they are able to access the involved risk when they can not.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
Infection risk via normal skin. Your post:
[i]"You called my objection being nonsense and denied any risks, saying that the HIV virus can't pass normal skin.
I pointed out to injuries and microscopic wounds that everybody has. It's also not impossible for the HIV virus to pass through normal skin. It's only harder due to the callus on the surface, but not impossible."[/i]
[/QUOTE]
Oh yes, now I recall. Thanks for checking back.
The HIV virus targets the human T-helper cells, which do also exist in the normal skin but just in smaller numbers. I remember that I have seen a very good documention produced by the BBC in which they say that it is possible to get infected through the normal skin, even though it is not very likely due to the callus on the surface and the small number of T-helper cells in the upper layers of the skin.
When you first referred to it you forgot to mention that I said that it isn't very likely. It's not impossible but you completely rule it out. I just wonder why doctors and people in laboratories wear gloves, just because of my beforementioned microscopic injuries - which do not exist or are unimportant due to your interpretation (see previous discussion regarding this issue) - or because it makes sense to be as careful as you can when handling possible infected material. I say better safe than sorry.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
Hide? Why? That’s simply mathematics, that risk factors can balance each other…depending on the personal evaluation of each risk.
[/QUOTE]
LOL, so now it's just math.
Yes hide, if the answer is so easy why you refused to tell us what your personal risk assessment/decision matrix says to my question.
And didn't we find out that those factors did not balance out because the older gogo girl was in fact an older freelancer who also worked in a gogo. In this case age and workplace made her more risky than the young bargirl, which means your risk assessmenmt rules already failed at a very simple example due to the fact that you don't know shit about the girls. Therefore those rules are useless and can be misleading.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
I did not say that. I think you misunderstood this structure of the report all the time. It is up to your risk assessment which factor you evaluate higher. If you think the age is more significant as a factor than the workplace/site than you evaluate it accordingly. If you think it is not a real risk factor set your evaluation to zero, and it disappears. Decision matrix!
[/QUOTE]
You said that by saying that they balance out. If it is simple math as you said above they must be ranking equally, otherwise they can't balance out. It's simply impossible and the way sorting orders work, if the first factor (workplace) differs and has a higher priority than the second one (age), any different in the second one can not lead to put this factor combination above the first one.
Anyway, you never mentioned any priority and if there would be one, how could they balance out ?
Nevertheless you still avoid a clear answer. I asked YOU what YOUR risk assessment tells YOU in that case. So stop talking about others evaluation of risk factors when people ask for YOUR evaluation of those factors.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
In my risk assessment I would always assume the highest risk option for a single risk factor (workplace is the factor in this case, age is a second factor, to be evaluated separately) - freelancing would cause a high risk assumption.
[/QUOTE]
You see, your risk assessment failed. The less risky gogo girl turned out to be a more risky freelancer. Since she is also older than the bargirl her risk dramatically increased compare to the bargirl simply because you did not know shit about her.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
In saying [b]"They pose the least risk"[/b] you somehow confirm to have performed the same thing I was writing about: [b]A Risk Assessment[/b] :) .
[/QUOTE]
Try to turn my words around, don't you ?
I clearly stated that due to YOUR risk assessment rules girls with the mentioned attributes would pose the least risk. All those mentioned attributes were rated by YOU with the least risk, not me.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
Come on man, seams to me that we both want the same thing, but we go different ways. We both use condoms, don't we?
[/QUOTE]
Yes we do, but I don't tell other people that one girl is less risky than another one, which is misleading as I don't know shit about either one.
[QUOTE=Giotto]
Oh, that reminds me, you did not answer MY questions :) :
[b]"Finally: Back to the risk assessments.
I would be interested in clear statements about personal behaviors. Who has never taken any risk during a P4P session? That means: Never touched a pussy (because of possible cuts in a finger), never got a BBBJ, never had sex without a condom, never eaten a pussy, always successfully avoided to get into any contact with the body fluid of a woman, etc. etc. …"[/b]
[/QUOTE]
Come on man, now you try to justify your bad advice with the fact that there is no way to avoid all and any risks involved with sex with an unknown partner, especially if she is a P4P.
But I can clearly state that I never had unprotected sex with a P4P, do not eat pussy of a P4P, do not stick my fingers in a pussy of a P4P and avoid french kissing with P4P. Maybe that's the reason why I prefer to have GFs, as we can perform all sex practices anyone can think of.
Sadly there is no way of completely avoiding to get in contact with female body fluids. The root of your penis and/or your pubic area will always come in contact with more or less fluid from her vagina as she gets horny. that's why I don't shave this area when going after P4P and put some lubricant on it as an additional layer and to avoid friction when the girl is riding me.
In short, I take as much precaution as possible and try to reduce the risk involved to a minimum no matter what my assumptions are about the girl and her health status.
[QUOTE=The Traveler]...Maybe that's the reason why I prefer to have GFs, as we can perform all sex practices anyone can think of.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but the disparity between your comical overreaction to the risk with prostitutes and your abject and naive trust of 'girlfriends' must be noted! Man, they're all prostitutes in one way or another, and even if you don't believe that, they just people and therefore certainly very apt to stray given any opportunity or incentive.
If I really believed sex were as risky as you apparently do, the last thing I would do would be to trust some 'girlfriend'.
[QUOTE=Jc373]There are pages and pages of argument here about risk etc, but the bottom line is both Giotto and Traveller are right.
Giotto is right in the sense that certain girls are a different risk than others, it is all a matter of statistics and we to an extent live our lives to them, but I really cannot see why anyone would risk there lives by stats. We could all arugue to we are blue in the face about what those risks are and what percentage risk a fresh faced gogo girl has compared to a freelancer so I really cannot see the point to it. Trav and others are right in this sense that we should all be covering up and not fooling ourselves that we will be ok simply because we have choosen someone from a lower risk group. Sure the chances might be lower, but the chance is still there.
But the bottom line is there is a risk, there is a risk from the freelancers, the bargirls, the gogo girls, the officer girls and even our own ladies, including wives at home. For mine even if the risk of getting something off the 18yo gogo girl who has been working for a week is only 1% then that is 1% too much. The only risk I would take is with a women I loved and trusted who I was in a long term manogomous relationship with. At the moment I don't have that, if I did I wouldn't be punting.[/QUOTE]
Jc373,
absolutely correct and nicely summed up.
[QUOTE=Opebo]I'm sorry, but the disparity between your comical overreaction to the risk with prostitutes and your abject and naive trust of 'girlfriends' must be noted! Man, they're all prostitutes in one way or another, and even if you don't believe that, they just people and therefore certainly very apt to stray given any opportunity or incentive.
If I really believed sex were as risky as you apparently do, the last thing I would do would be to trust some 'girlfriend'.[/QUOTE]
Opebo,
you obviously are a lonely guy who probably never had a girlfriend.
Of course I put some trust in them as anybody does who is in a relationship, but I guess you don't know what a relationship is as nobody wants you. As already said, my GFs usually live with me and therefore have no occasion for any "additional" activities. It's also questionable why they should do it, there is no advantage for them besides maybe fucking someone else, but by thinking of you I doubt it is desirable.
I always have my girlfriends checked twice over a period of three months before going bareback to make sure that they do not carry the HIV virus or any other nasty stuff. Just did that with my current GF, made the second complete test for HIV, Hep. A+B, Syphillis, Clamydia, Papilloma, bacterias and fungus. Also a complete blood test incl. sugar, HDL, LDL and blood count to detect a current infection. This test cost about 8000 baht.
Also made a complete pep smear test which will set you back an additional 12.000 baht.
Therefore it's not just naive believe in my GF, but hard scientific facts that she is healthy.
I assume your mom, grandmas and/or sisters have been the GF of someone. Will or have they also been straying around on any given opportunity or incentive ? Do you also think of them as prostitutes ? And did you tell them ?
If not, what makes them different from my GFs or any other women ?
Did you ever hear of love, affection and desire ?
Maybe you don't know about such things because your are such an obnoxious, unpopular guy who is in the doghouse.
[QUOTE=Piper1]Hey, I remember seeing you and your two lovers fighting it out on the Jerry Springer show.
PS - Your mother-in-law had given birth? Really? Think about it.[/QUOTE]
My wife is the step daughter
Traveller,
This is now really funny, better to say LOL.
You yourself went trough some brainwork (others would call it risk assessment and Giotto being more a 'math guy' probably Decision Matrix) and figured that 'GF' are less risky.
I agree and in my decision matrix/ risk assessment a 'GF' is as well less risky then an official p4p. But we all know that especially in Thailand the 'GF' P4P scenery is much more fluent then in other countries.
Girls fuck around (to our favour), some p4p fulltime or part time for cash, others occasionally for some other benefit and some just for fun. Girl’s pussy, also non P4P is somehow in average easier accessible for us then in other countries. Where else can you have with some nice skills the chance to go ahead with sales girls, air hostesses etc. then in Thailand.
According to statistics again we many times stated here that even 'GF's' have some remaining risk.
What makes the thing interesting is that you change your behaviour 'and do all the things you can think of' what you don't do with your 'more risky' P4P girls.
So finally we figure that you yourself are using your own adjusted risk assessment to also play around at least 'less protected' if you consider risk low.
Welcome to the real world I can say. I conclude that the only difference between The Traveller and Opepo is simply the different personal risk factors.
Greetings
Brain666
To understand the fundamentals of safe sex risk management ( :) ) it seams to be necessary to explain the mathematical principles of a decision matrix.
Let us try to buy a washing machine:
To make a decision which of the 100 available products we take we first think about, on which factors we will base our decision. What do we think about, what can be important when we buy a washing machine?
Let’s assume, we are men, and have neither much knowledge about washing nor huge fantasy as women have sometimes. So we only find 4 decision factors:
Price
Functionality
Quality
Colour
The next step would now be to evaluate the scale to the factors, how important are they? That depends on our personal decision factor scaling assessment (:D). If we have enough money the price is not as important as if it would cost us a months salary. And for women the color might be more important than for us. I give it a try (please don’t attack me for that, it’s only a washing machine):
- Price……...……….4
- Functionality……2
- Quality……..…….6
- Colour…………....1
That means basically, that for me the quality is most important. I don’t give a shit what colour it is.
Now the evaluation of the single product, to be done with a point rating between 0 – 10, for each single decision factor.
Now we go to a washing machine shop and look at all products. The price ranges are in between Euro 200,00 and Euro 1,000.00 (to be honest, I have no idea what a washing machine costs). That means eg., that the Euro 200.00 machine gets 10 points, and the Euro 1,000.00 machine gets 1 point (we don’t want to waste money), above that all machines are ruled out – they get 0 points (a washing machine for more than Euro 1,000.00 – that would be crazy. I have my wife!).
Functionality is checked out and evaluated in a point rating between 0 – 10, based on the manuals and presentations we get in the shop. There is something like different washing programs - hell, I have no idea.
The quality – we develop ourselves to washing machine specialist during the visit in the shop(s), so we evaluate the quality – yes, in a point rating between 0 and 10 !!! Of course we are influenced in this evaluation by our personal preferences and experiences with brand names from the past.
Finally – the colour. White is nice but boring, 3 points. The silver one looks nice, 8 points. The black one – so so, 5 points.
Now we take a break and walk to the next coffee shop. We fill out our decision matrix form, multiplying the scale with our evaluation of each decision factor, and finally sum up all factors – we get a total number for each single machine.
The machine who got the highest number of points is bought thereafter.
The only remaining question for me is: Are there really black washing machines :) ?
Giotto
[QUOTE=Giotto]Are there really black washing machines :) ?
Giotto[/QUOTE]
Yes there are. It's a very popular color for appliances.
[QUOTE=Brain666]
You yourself went trough some brainwork (others would call it risk assessment and Giotto being more a 'math guy' probably Decision Matrix) and figured that 'GF' are less risky.
[/QUOTE]
Brain666,
of course we all do make risk assessments in the broader sense of this expression, you even do make a risk assessment when simply crossing the street, but this isn't the subject of the discussion.
The subject of the discussion is, if anybody is able to [b]rate the risk of P4P girls.[/b]
I also have far more information about my GF than about any P4P, therefore whatever my risk assessment may be, it will be far more accurate for my GF than for any unknown P4P. You will argue that there is still some room for an error. Yes, that's true, this is real life and and there aren't many things that are for certain. But again, the faithfulness of GFs isn't the subject and even Giotto won't apply his risk assessment rules on his GF.
So your objection is use- and worthless because you expand the subject beyond rating risks of P4P.
P.S. Please let me add, that I find any comparison between Opebo and me very offensive for very obvious reasons.
[QUOTE=Giotto]To understand the fundamentals of safe sex risk management ( :) ) it seams to be necessary to explain the mathematical principles of a decision matrix.
[/QUOTE]
Giotto,
we all know what a decision matrix is as we all make decisions on a daily basis.
All this talking about a decision matrix is nothing but a distraction from the real problem : that your risk assessment rules are nonsense as they only focus on a very small subset of attributes/issues involved in rating the risk of a potential sex partner.
When buying a washing machine, you do know ALL factors that are important and you also have means to check most of them beforehand. But with P4P you DON'T know all factors and can not check them as well.
As my below example showed, your risk assessment already failed at the most simple case.
You still refuse to give us a straight answer to my question and to explain why still believe your irisk assessment is able to make an accurate assessment of the risk even though it dramatically failed in the below example. I know very well that ignoring unpleasant topics is a tactic that you and others often use when being cornered, but most people can see it and not giving an answer is an admittance of failure.