Printable View
[QUOTE=LAGuy5;1817078]FWIW, the reason for including "cabbages" in the name is the founder wanted condoms to be as widespread as cabbages so he chose that name. Has nothing to do with cabbage as a food item at the restaurant.[/QUOTE]I think cabbage comes from the old say that when you are a kid they tell you babes are born by finding them under a cabbage.
Condom is birth control and cabbage is birth.
[QUOTE=LAGuy5;1817654]I have eaten there a few times and found the food reasonably good, and the atmosphere relaxing. I know a few others who also like the place.
The founder of the restaurant is a very interesting guy, and it is also satisfying to know the money earned by the restaurant goes to a good cause. Of course anything it earns out of my pocket pales in contrast to the grant the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave to the NGO headed by the restaurant's founder. His Wikipedia bio is interesting as are many of the links at the end of the bio. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechai_Viravaidya[/URL], including a link to his TED talk, [URL]http://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaidya_how_mr_condom_made_thailand_a_better_place[/URL], and a short article about his efforts and the restaurant in the New York Times, [URL]http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/cabbages-and-condoms-a-winning-idea/?_r=0.[/URL].[/QUOTE]It's too bad that in the midst of his many good works he did a grave disservice to Thailand if not all of Asia by continually promoting the misconception that HIV transmission is just as likely to occur through ordinary vaginal or oral sex as it is through anal sex. I saw him doing it in that linked video and his authorized biographer does the same thing in the only book on his life sold in the Cabbages and Condoms restaurant, "From Condoms to Cabbages".
Somewhere soon after page 300 or so of his authorized biography it cites statistics on how many Thai homosexuals and I. V. drug users were found to be HIV-positive before his pro-condom campaign got underway. But after his major condom campaign has had a few years to take hold, statistics that differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals is dropped and no longer mentioned. Only the overly general terms "sex workers" or "prostitutes" are used. Consequently, when it cites how the rate of HIV infection dropped after his widespread pro-condom campaign had been in effect for a while, the reader is supposed to think the rate of HIV infection had once or ever been high among female sex workers and female prostitutes who engaged primarily in vaginal or oral sex instead of understanding they are probably ONLY talking about statistically significant numbers of male sex workers and male prostitutes who far, far more frequently engaged in anal sex.
Whenever the water is muddied in that way and there is no distinction made between typically "hetero" sex like vaginal or oral sex and typically "homo" sex like anal sex, it is clear evidence of fear-mongering sleight-of-hand at its finest, IMO.
Here is an interesting sub link in one of the links provided above:
Conversations / Mechai Viravaidya; Brash and Unabashed, Mr. Condom Takes on Sex and Death in Thailand.
By PHILIP SHENON.
Published: December 20,1992.
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/20/weekinreview/conversations-mechai-viravaidya-brash-unabashed-mr-condom-takes-sex-death.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]Criticized by some Thais as a brash, fear-mongering self-promoter who has crippled the nation's tourism industry, Mr. Mechai is likely to be remembered in the annals of AIDS prevention as one of the few Asian leaders who tried to educate the public early about the scourge that now seems likely to devastate the continent. Asia Looks the Other Way[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Eszpresszo;1817398]Okay guys, since you got on the theme of restaurants for Farangs. What is an interesting restaurant for WESTERN food that would be a good place to take a DATE? Yes, I know Thai food is delicious. Its one of the reasons I've long wanted to visit Thailand. But. To add a bit of culinary variety and to give a Thai girl a chance to do something out of the routine, what could be some good options that a Thai lady, girl or WG (if that be the case) would appreciate? I've been chatting with a lot of chicks I met on ThaiFriendly and I got a shitload of contacts. But, when you ask them where they like to go, or what they like to do, they draw a blank. I sense money is a big factor here, so they could be easy to impress if you took them to some place they'd never been to.
Thanks for your feedback.[/QUOTE]I've eaten at the place at the top of State Tower and the food is good, way overpriced, service ranging from good to slipshod, but the view and ambience are incredible.
The Italian place on the corner of Suk and soi 19 used to be some of the best I've had outside of Italy, but that may have changed. The prices (partially due to a bad exchange rate) began to exceed anything in LA.
My GF likes Indus, an Indian place near Suk and soi 26. Good service, decent Indian food.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;1817730]It's too bad that in the midst of his many good works he did a grave disservice to Thailand if not all of Asia by continually promoting the misconception that HIV transmission is just as likely to occur through ordinary vaginal or oral sex as it is through anal sex. I saw him doing it in that linked video and his authorized biographer does the same thing in the only book on his life sold in the Cabbages and Condoms restaurant, "From Condoms to Cabbages".
Somewhere soon after page 300 or so of his authorized biography it cites statistics on how many Thai homosexuals and I. V. drug users were found to be HIV-positive before his pro-condom campaign got underway. But after his major condom campaign has had a few years to take hold, statistics that differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals is dropped and no longer mentioned. Only the overly general terms "sex workers" or "prostitutes" are used. Consequently, when it cites how the rate of HIV infection dropped after his widespread pro-condom campaign had been in effect for a while, the reader is supposed to think the rate of HIV infection had once or ever been high among female sex workers and female prostitutes who engaged primarily in vaginal or oral sex instead of understanding they are probably ONLY talking about statistically significant numbers of male sex workers and male prostitutes who far, far more frequently engaged in anal sex.
Whenever the water is muddied in that way and there is no distinction made between typically "hetero" sex like vaginal or oral sex and typically "homo" sex like anal sex, it is clear evidence of fear-mongering sleight-of-hand at its finest, IMO.
Here is an interesting sub link in one of the links provided above:
Conversations / Mechai Viravaidya; Brash and Unabashed, Mr. Condom Takes on Sex and Death in Thailand.
By PHILIP SHENON.
Published: December 20,1992.
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/20/weekinreview/conversations-mechai-viravaidya-brash-unabashed-mr-condom-takes-sex-death.html[/URL][/QUOTE]The article you link to is from 1992 when there was much less knowledge than now about HIV and AIDS and there was a legitimate fear of a massive worldwide AIDS epidemic (along the lines of what was happening in Africa where there was no question of heterosexual transmission of the virus, albeit primarily of a different strain). The article says some called Mechai a fear mongerer, and you seem to characterize him that way as well. But this is the same guy who made a point of publicly drinking water out of a glass that an HIV positive person drank out of to demonstrate HIV/AIDS could not be spread by this type of casual contact. Hardly the type of demonstration a fear mongerer would engage in.
He may have over-stated the risk of heterosexual transmission, just as many might say you have under-stated it. In fact, even today it is not an easy issue to unequivocally resolve. And when it comes to issues of public health, it is probably better to overstate a risk than to ignore or understate a real risk. In any event, from where I am sitting he acted in good faith and did more good than any harm, particularly at a time when there was a lot of scientific uncertainty about the conditions under which HIV was transmitted. . And, of course, a great amount of his work focused on family planning issues, not just AIDS/HIV.
[QUOTE=LAGuy5;1817835]The article you link to is from 1992 when there was much less knowledge than now about HIV and AIDS and there was a legitimate fear of a massive worldwide AIDS epidemic (along the lines of what was happening in Africa where there was no question of heterosexual transmission of the virus, albeit primarily of a different strain). The article says some called Mechai a fear mongerer, and you seem to characterize him that way as well. But this is the same guy who made a point of publicly drinking water out of a glass that an HIV positive person drank out of to demonstrate HIV/AIDS could not be spread by this type of casual contact. Hardly the type of demonstration a fear mongerer would engage in.
He may have over-stated the risk of heterosexual transmission, just as many might say you have under-stated it. In fact, even today it is not an easy issue to unequivocally resolve. And when it comes to issues of public health, it is probably better to overstate a risk than to ignore or understate a real risk. In any event, from where I am sitting he acted in good faith and did more good than any harm, particularly at a time when there was a lot of scientific uncertainty about the conditions under which HIV was transmitted. And, of course, a great amount of his work focused on family planning issues, not just AIDS/HIV.[/QUOTE]He could just as well have gotten a bareback blowjob from a dozen HIV infected "sex workers" as well and proven you can't get HIV that way either. Instead, he indoctrinated children with horror stories about how they will get HIV and die a horrible death for merely engaging in ordinary vaginal and oral sex as though that was every bit as risky as engaging in receptive anal sex.
He is still misrepresenting the dangers today, not just in 1992 when "we didn't know". Has he amended any of his prior statements and suggestions to the effect of, say, "Oh, it turns out it is extremely difficult and rare for a man to contract HIV from a vagina or a mouth, most difficult for a circumcised man. So I guess we can lighten up on that horror story going forward, particularly for those men who have been circumcised"? I haven't seen that. Yet, in the absence of the kind of bizarre bloodletting marital rituals and sex practices in some Sub-Saharan African cultures, we know very well that it is extremely difficult and rare for a man to get HIV from an infected woman via her vagina or mouth. BTW, we knew a great deal more by 1992 than he and his organization let on.
One of the main reasons fear mongering of that sort, twisting the science and known statistics supposedly "for the greater good", is a grave disservice to society is because when the overwhelming empirical evidence ultimately sets in, as it has in the case of extremely low risk of transmission from women to men, through oral sex and so on, young people who he campaigned so hard to indoctrinate begin to call bullshit on it. They look around, cannot find a single man who can conclusively say he got HIV from a vagina or a mouth despite knowing full well that still a very small percentage of Thai men use condoms all that often, and then they begin to slack off on the idea of wearing condoms even for the more dangerous acts, receptive anal sex or receptive sex with a known I. V. drug user.
I would liken it to the mistake and disservice supposedly well-meaning fear-mongerers made by demonizing the use of marijuana in the largely failed "War on Drugs" as though smoking a joint was no different than shooting heroin directly into your veins. Inevitably, it does not serve "the greater good" at all. It only invites suspicion toward everything promoted by the so-called "authorities".
Meanwhile, condom use in the Philippines is still as much a non issue now as it was before and during the whole HIV / AIDS hysteria years yet the Philippines has one of the lowest rates of HIV in all of Asia.
The guy's campaign on condoms was originally about reducing the birth rate in Thailand re poverty. But he apparently missed the point that the reason Thai people had so many kids isn't because they didn't know how babies got made or how to prevent that from happening. It was because they needed children to take care of them in their old age! The more, the better! He should have directed more of his wit, charm and those amusing public appearances to promoting a USA-style Social Security program for Thailand instead. That would very likely have produced a decline in birth rate as well. Having kids is an expensive proposition on the front end, the early years. So if you don't need to rack up a brood to provide the basics for you in your old age, you've got another good reason not to have so many in the first place.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;1817850]in the absence of the kind of bizarre bloodletting marital rituals and sex practices in some Sub-Saharan African cultures, we know very well that it is extremely difficult and rare for a man to get HIV from an infected woman via her vagina or mouth..[/QUOTE]I'm not fully familiar with these African practices, but unless they involve subjecting the penis to blood or other bodily fluids it would be difficult to explain in these terms why male circumcision lowers the risk of contracting HIV there by 40 to 60 percent according to the latest estimates.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;1817850]One of the main reasons fear mongering of that sort, twisting the science and known statistics supposedly "for the greater good", is a grave disservice to society is because when the overwhelming empirical evidence ultimately sets in, as it has in the case of extremely low risk of transmission from women to men, through oral sex and so on, young people who he campaigned so hard to indoctrinate begin to call bullshit on it. They look around, cannot find a single man who can conclusively say he got HIV from a vagina or a mouth despite knowing full well that still a very small percentage of Thai men use condoms all that often, and then they begin to slack off on the idea of wearing condoms even for the more dangerous acts, receptive anal sex or receptive sex with a known I. V. drug user.[/QUOTE]Over one million people have contracted HIV in Thailand according to what I have read, with an estimated adult prevalence rate currently of more than one percent. Even using the "first world" CDC estimate that the chance of a woman contracting HIV from vaginal sex with an infected individual is around 1 out of 1,000 [B]per sex act[/B], when one works the numbers, and also takes into account estimates of transmission seem to be significantly higher in non first-world countries (presumably because of the lower standards of health in less developed countries) it is not irrational from a public health standpoint for the population to use condoms so as to keep the spread of the disease from multiplying.
I'm also not clear why you only refer to the female to male transmission rate while ignoring the male to female transmission rate if the discussion is about whether as a matter of public policy condom usage should be encouraged. On the other hand, if the discussion were about the risk members of this forum would be subjected to by not wearing a condom, that would be a different matter that is separate from a discussion of what constitutes good public policy. Incidentally, in my experience the use of condoms by sex workers in Bangkok is still the norm, albeit not uniformly (it never was) and I'm not sure I have seen a lot of change in this over the last ten or fifteen years. Maybe others have had different experiences in this regard.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;1817850]Has he amended any of his prior statements and suggestions to the effect of, say, "Oh, it turns out it is extremely difficult and rare for a man to contract HIV from a vagina or a mouth, most difficult for a circumcised man. So I guess we can lighten up on that horror story going forward, particularly for those men who have been circumcised"?[/QUOTE]
I don't think many Thai men are circumcised. But the fact there are studies showing circumcision lowers the risk of female to male HIV transmission also demonstrates it does occur at a rate high enough to show up in studies.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;1817850]The guy's campaign on condoms was originally about reducing the birth rate in Thailand re poverty. But he apparently missed the point that the reason Thai people had so many kids isn't because they didn't know how babies got made or how to prevent that from happening. It was because they needed children to take care of them in their old age! The more, the better! He should have directed more of his wit, charm and those amusing public appearances to promoting a USA-style Social Security program for Thailand instead. That would very likely have produced a decline in birth rate as well. Having kids is an expensive proposition on the front end, the early years. So if you don't need to rack up a brood to provide the basics for you in your old age, you've got another good reason not to have so many in the first place.[/QUOTE]The family birthrate in 1975 in Thailand was about seven kids per family, which was about the time he started his family planning efforts from what I understand. It is now about 1.5 kids per family, a decrease of nearly eighty percent. I grant the possibility there may be other reasons for this (although I know of none), but it certainly wasn't a USA-style social security program.
Perhaps this discussion is evolving into one that more appropriately should be in the safe sex thread. However, I'm not so interested in joining that discussion; rather I just feel the Cabbages and Condom guy shouldn't get a bad rap for what I consider the good work he is doing and am posting for that reason as well as that I like his restaurants.
[QUOTE=LAGuy5;1817874]
Over one million people have contracted HIV in Thailand according to what I have read, with an estimated adult prevalence rate currently of more than one percent. Even using the "first world" CDC estimate that the chance of a woman contracting HIV from vaginal sex with an infected individual is around 1 out of 1,000 per sex act, when one works the numbers, and also takes into account estimates of transmission seem to be significantly higher in non first-world countries (presumably because of the lower standards of health in less developed countries) it is not irrational from a public health standpoint for the population to use condoms so as to keep the spread of the disease from multiplying.
I'm also not clear why you only refer to the female to male transmission rate while ignoring the male to female transmission rate if the discussion is about whether as a matter of public policy condom usage should be encouraged. On the other hand, if the discussion were about the risk members of this forum would be subjected to by not wearing a condom, that would be a different matter that is separate from a discussion of what constitutes good public policy. [/QUOTE]Actually, the way the CDC puts it, the chances of HIV contraction via receptive penile-vaginal intercourse is 8 out of 10,000 exposures to HIV-infected partners. Which makes it more like 1 out of 1,250 exposures.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html
And that is a worldwide figure, which means it factors in Sub-Saharan Africa wherein some cultures so highly prize a woman being a virgin on her wedding day, they stitch up her vagina so there is sure to be tearing and bleeding on insertion. They are also known to highly prize dry vagina's rather than naturally lubricated ones during the marriage in order to assure the husband that his wife / property is not "sex crazed" and can be trusted not to screw his neighbor while he is off to work. Consequently, women go to great lengths to make sure their vaginas are dry during sex, applying clay, animal dung compounds and the like. Of course, the dryness also encourages tearing and bleeding, of the male as well as the female, an extraordinarily welcoming environment for transmission of HIV and all other kinds of diseases. How many of those "8 out of 10,000 exposures" do you suppose apply to those Sub-Saharan African cultures instead of men and women engaging in sex for free or for money in Thailand? I'm going to go out on a limb and say the same 70-75% of new HIV transmission cases that apply to Sub-Saharan Africa already. So now we're down to about 2 out of 10,000 exposures to HIV infected partners for everyone else on the planet.
Female to male transmission is very much pertinent to the overall subject of forums like this one rather than male to female transmission because the likelihood of a needle-sharing I. V. drug user or a man who has engaged in enough receptive anal sex with other men to have contracted HIV from them traveling to Thailand in order to spend money having vaginal or oral sex with women would have to be extremely low, to the point of being statistically insignificant. If the punters reading this are not likely by any stretch to be HIV-positive then I assure you they pose none or as near to zero risk of transmitting HIV to a female partner as you can get. In this regard, male to female transmission just isn't pertinent. However, IF it were easy or remotely likely for a man to contract HIV from a woman absent the extraordinary bloodletting practices mentioned above, which we know it isn't (and likely even less so for circumcised males, as the above CDC link states), then of course he could get it from a woman on Monday and then transmit it into a bargirl on Wednesday (for the purposes of illustration, that is). But we know that is about as like to happen as getting struck my lightening twice in the same week during the Hot Season.
I am not saying any of those outcomes is impossible. I am saying it just isn't probable by any realistic view of the universe as we can easily observe it. There are airplane crashes every year. Some of them crash into homes. But nobody advocates wearing full body armor while sitting in their living rooms to watch tv every night on the chance that tonight might be your night. Unless, of course, someone sees an opportunity to make a name for himself and establish a nice ongoing income stream for himself and his organization by promoting the sale and wearing of full body armor for anyone and everyone at all times.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;1817882]
I am not saying any of those outcomes is impossible. I am saying it just isn't probable by any realistic view of the universe as we can easily observe it.[/QUOTE]Pray tell me, if the transmission rate is so extremely unrealistically low where do all the HIV / AIDS infected people come from (other than in Africa)? Or are they all homosexual IV drug users?
The error in your reasoning is that you are looking at individual statistics whereas the "Cabbages and Condoms" point of view is from a public health perspective. If you can reduce the transmissions rate of STI (not only HIV, but all the other nasties too) by 90% by propagating condom use, then their campaign is a perfectly good example of how to do it.
It is far more science based than 99% of all the "big pharma" campaigns to sell you useless vitamin and mineral supplements.
Furthermore their campaign aims go deeper. One of the key links in the chain to a more wealthy society is reducing the birthrate. Contrary to what you say, one does not need 7 children to replace a missing or failing social security system (the USA is a perfecly good example in that respect). Lower birthrates allow for better education for more children, especially for women. That in its turn gives them better chances to obtain a paying job (rather than only being housewives for a big family) and the (relative) lack of an inexhaustible pool of uneducated workers willing to do dangerous work for a pittance, increases the quality (and price) of the work offered.
Educating (mainly) women and making condoms as easily available as cabbages on the local market (hence the name of their restaurants) was the simple but effective way to achieve their aim.
In that respect "Cabbages and Condoms" has done a sterling job. Perhaps the Pope should grant them sainthood rather than Mother Theresa, who did far less (if anything at all) to attack the root causes of poverty.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;1817882]Actually, the way the CDC puts it, the chances of HIV contraction via receptive penile-vaginal intercourse is 8 out of 10,000 exposures to HIV-infected partners. Which makes it more like 1 out of 1,250 exposures.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html
And that is a worldwide figure, which means it factors in Sub-Saharan Africa[/QUOTE]You are wrong about this being a worldwide average that includes sub-Sahara Africa, as much as I wish you weren't. According to the study upon which the CDC estimates rely:
"We highlighted data from developed regions to more closely reflect the US epidemic; this strategy was consistent with that used for the relevant meta-analyses, which did not pool data from developed and developing countries due to heterogeneity among studies, except for the per-act HIV-transmission risk from parenteral exposures, which is less geographically dependent. ".
For the complete study: [URL]http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/2014/06190/Estimating_per_act_HIV_transmission_risk___a.14.aspx[/URL].
[QUOTE=EihTooms;1817882]Actually, the way the CDC puts it, the chances of HIV contraction via receptive penile-vaginal intercourse is 8 out of 10,000.................[/QUOTE]1. Utterly confused. Are you saying that when a woman fucks a man the risks are much lower than when a man fucks a woman? Isn't than an oxymoron statement?
2. If as you say, the risks of catching AIDS / HIV are extremely low, there is still a risk. It's fine for you to be one of the 8. HIV is not the only STD, you know.
3. You may be dismissive of the guy who started the campaign, but at least he had the courage to do what he did, and I applaud him for that. If you come up with something else which do as good or better, my applause to you too.
[QUOTE=Duniawala;1818100]1. Utterly confused. Are you saying that when a woman fucks a man the risks are much lower than when a man fucks a woman? Isn't than an oxymoron statement?[/QUOTE]
I don't know if the numbers are correct, but it is not an oxymoron.
When it comes to unprotected vaginal sex, a HIV- woman has a higher chance of getting infected from a HIV+ man than the other way around (HIV- man from a HIV+ woman). This is due to differences in anatomy. For instance, sperm carries the virus, and remains in the woman's body, whereas vaginal fluids would wash away (and perhaps not infect unless there's a tiny break in skin).
There is a similar disparity in risk between a receptive and insertive partner in anal sex, but obviously anal sex itself is far more risky to start with.
Of course, all of this means nothing. Even if you assume a low risk per exposure, it goes up fairly fast with the number of exposures. For instance, assuming 1 in 1000 risk (.999% safe), 100 sex acts (not much in Thailand) give you a 9.5% chance of getting it. Not that low.
[QUOTE=Crocodilexp;1818127]I don't know if the numbers are correct, but it is not an oxymoron.
When it comes to unprotected vaginal sex, a HIV- woman has a higher chance of getting infected from a HIV+ man than the other way around (HIV- man from a HIV+ woman). This is due to differences in anatomy. For instance, sperm carries the virus, and remains in the woman's body, whereas vaginal fluids would wash away (and perhaps not infect unless there's a tiny break in skin).
There is a similar disparity in risk between a receptive and insertive partner in anal sex, but obviously anal sex itself is far more risky to start with.
Of course, all of this means nothing. Even if you assume a low risk per exposure, it goes up fairly fast with the number of exposures. For instance, assuming 1 in 1000 risk (.999% safe), 100 sex acts (not much in Thailand) give you a 9.5% chance of getting it. Not that low.[/QUOTE]Just to add a clarifying detail, the CDC statistics refer to risk per unprotected exposure with an HIV-infected person, not risk per sex act with a random person.
[QUOTE=LAGuy5;1818260]Just to add a clarifying detail, the CDC statistics refer to risk per unprotected exposure with an HIV-infected person, not risk per sex act with a random person.[/QUOTE]So that means like a handshake between the two?
[QUOTE=Duniawala;1818273]So that means like a handshake between the two?[/QUOTE]It only means that for dimwits.
[QUOTE=LAGuy5;1817904]You are wrong about this being a worldwide average that includes sub-Sahara Africa, as much as I wish you weren't. According to the study upon which the CDC estimates rely:
"We highlighted data from developed regions to more closely reflect the US epidemic; this strategy was consistent with that used for the relevant meta-analyses, which did not pool data from developed and developing countries due to heterogeneity among studies, except for the per-act HIV-transmission risk from parenteral exposures, which is less geographically dependent. ".
For the complete study: [URL]http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/2014/06190/Estimating_per_act_HIV_transmission_risk___a.14.aspx[/URL].[/QUOTE]Thanks for the clarification. I searched all over the CDC page and did not see a mention of that aspect of the methodology, despite the fact that they do mention other factors. But that doesn't change the fact of extremely low risk for a man contracting HIV via vaginal or oral sex.