AIDS isn't a problem anymore!

[tomscam]

Interesting to read that BM's here are turned off by BB fucking and ATM. It has almost become the standard these days and appears to have grown in popularity. I few years back I didn't see much BB LB fucking on video but now I'm seeing more of this then vids with the guy wearing a raincoat.

It would be interesting to know what the stats are for those people who star in these films (whether once or on a regular basis) to see how many eventually do become HIV + or get other STD's.

Maybe I've become desensitized but I don't mind watching these types of films. There's a lot of crazy shit people do in porn, sometimes I'll watch it but it doesn't mean I'll do it.

[alyssats]

safe sex and encounter always

[azza33]

(Ivor Biggun @ Apr. 30 2010,23:33) I perused xhamster before (purely for research purposes as tube8 is blocked here ) It seems that the porn industry as a whole has got away from the use of condoms. I know they have a good scrub out before but I'm not particular keen on the uncovered ATM either

Never frown at the brown Ivor

[Ninewives]

(whore @ Apr. 29 2010,22:50) Perfect example would be a ladyboy I fucked a while ago, who I later found out done a bareback video. If I knew it beforehand I would not of given her the time of day. Now you could imagine if guys kept turning her down in the bar she worked, and every guy made it clear that they did not want to go with her because of her barebacking videos.

How soon do you think it would take for all the ladyboys to take notice of this and maybe just maybe they will be alittle less reluctant to do barebacking.

Just maybe she would think twice before going bareback whilst on camera but do you seriously think this would make a difference when she is in the seclusion of her punter's bedroom?

[Ninewives]

(laputanegra @ Apr. 30 2010,05:00) Think Positive Stay Negative.

[razrman]

I too, am firmly for the idea that ladyboys who feature in bareback videos ought to be refused business.
None of us should be party to a dangerous and foolish game. It's somebody's life at stake!
The producers of the videos have claimed that the participants  have been tested for HIV/AIDS. That may be so, but what it fails to mention is that detection of the virus is only possible from six weeks to three months after infection. So even if they've been tested they should refrain from any unprotected sex during that period.
Just like whore, I also had a friend who contacted AIDS resulting in a slow and very painful death. The sight of him dying in that shrivelled condition is etched in my mind forever. Trust me, you wouldn't want your worst enemy to die that way.
If word goes around that punters refuse to take ladyboys that bareback, it will ultimately make a difference. Even if we save one life that would be something better than nothing.

[Road Runner]

I am Lady Boy up to Buddha.

It seems they think their incarnation was the last stop before being turned into an animal.

For a Budhist to be re-incarnated as a ladyboy means they have done something in their past life that gave them very bad karma.
I believe that specifically it's a punishment for adultery.

Judging by what I've seen going on up-country I can't work out why half of Thailand are not ladyboys!    

Either way they tend to believe that the shame of their present life would be better ended so they can be re-incarnated in a form nearer to enlightenment.

Also there is the underlying belief that you live life today as you do not know what your fate will be tomorrow.
They don't plan ahead to not die of a STD by wearing a condom as anything they do will not affect fate.


Thailand did have a good program promoting the use of condoms around 2003-4 but as things have become unravelled it's been forgotten.


To quote Laputanegra  -  Think Positive Stay Negative.


You can pretty well guarantee that all the girls will have barebacked and nearly all will do so if you ask them  -  'up to you'.

While I agree that it seems a good idea to refuse to go with a girl that has barebacked in a video I suspect that it is unlikely to alter their behaviour or that of any others.      


RR.

[doug]

Here's something I don't understand about the OP.

Why make a post warning us about a "worrying trend" based on videos you've seen on a couple of bareback websites (which means you've obviously paid for a membership on those sites).

If you are worried about that trend, why did you pay for a membership on those websites? By doing so, you are, in fact, supporting that trend by paying to see it.

Barebacking SHOULD worry you, and therefore you should refuse to support websites that feature it.

[whore]

I understand where your coming from Doug, but the original poster hasnt said in his post that he watched the videos or is a paying member of these websites.

[whore]

(razrman @ May 04 2010,20:51) I too, am firmly for the idea that ladyboys who feature in bareback videos ought to be refused business.
None of us should be party to a dangerous and foolish game. It's somebody's life at stake!
The producers of the videos have claimed that the participants  have been tested for HIV/AIDS. That may be so, but what it fails to mention is that detection of the virus is only possible from six weeks to three months after infection. So even if they've been tested they should refrain from any unprotected sex during that period.
Just like whore, I also had a friend who contacted AIDS resulting in a slow and very painful death. The sight of him dying in that shrivelled condition is etched in my mind forever. Trust me, you wouldn't want your worst enemy to die that way.
If word goes around that punters refuse to take ladyboys that bareback, it will ultimately make a difference. Even if we save one life that would be something better than nothing.

Great post Razman

Its a great point to raise about HIV being undetectable for 6 weeks to 3 months after infection.

It kinda throws a dampner on the whole idea of the producers of these websites doing tests before the shooting of bareback scenes.

[iceberg]

(doug @ May 05 2010,04:26) Here's something I don't understand about the OP.

Why make a post warning us about a "worrying trend" based on videos you've seen on a couple of bareback websites (which means you've obviously paid for a membership on those sites).

If you are worried about that trend, why did you pay for a membership on those websites?  By doing so, you are, in fact, supporting that trend by paying to see it.

Barebacking SHOULD worry you, and therefore you should refuse to support websites that feature it.

All of the sights give teaser sample vids so to say the only way that the OP has seen the videos is to have paid for a membership is not really true. I have seen these same websites and have not paid to be a member.

[azza33]

I find this to be an odd thread & the attacks on video models to be over the top.

From my interactions 99.5% of these girls don't think 1 week ahead to their future.
Nearly all go bareback- maybe not with farang, perhaps with their Thai boyfriend!

I don't know what world you think these girls come from but their is some seriously niece bm's out there.

As a couple of posters have mentioned - treat every girl in the scene to be of the highest risk.

All choices are , as they say, up to you

[TEERAK]

(razrman @ May 04 2010,13:51) The producers of the videos have claimed that the participants  have been tested for HIV/AIDS. That may be so, but what it fails to mention is that detection of the virus is only possible from six weeks to three months after infection. So even if they've been tested they should refrain from any unprotected sex during that period.

I did some research on the net a while back and actually tests show that the average window period is <22 days. 90% of people will have seroconverted by 30 days, 95% after 6 weeks. Also, for the first 3 weeks after initial infection the viral load won't be high enough for that person to be infectious.

To contract HIV from somebody who's just tested negative would mean that person would've had to have been infected at least 3 weeks before testing AND test negative. On top of that you've got a <1% chance of contracting it per exposure if your the receiver.

If you get it from someone who's just tested negative it REALLY is your unlucky day.

So I think bareback movies are completely fine

[whore]

Azza I will admit that my posts are coming across as an attack on models who do bareback videos for websites. My decision to not go with a ladyboy who does this is just me trying to send a message of the dangers of unprotected sex.

I do not buy into all those claims about the actual percentages of things related to this topic. My way of looking at it is, there is a 0.41% chance of someone getting dealt pocket Aces in a game of poker. It happens quite often when am playing, whether it be me or another player, it always happens. Thailand is a casino and if people have unprotected sex with multiple partners in the p4p scene in this casino, they are going to get the pocket Aces dealt to them at some stage.

The reasons behind my way of thinking isnt about self preservation. Like me choosing not to go with a ladyboy who does bareback videos, its not in fear of catching something. I know the dangers of unprotected sex and I have to look after myself, so I choose to always wear a condom. Its just me making a vain attempt at maybe, just maybe, getting a young ladyboy new to the scene aware of the dangers, and to maybe, just maybe making the right decision when asked to do bareback.

We have all met some great ladyboys in Thailand and am sure alot of us here would consider some of the ladyboys we have met to be good friends. I like anyone else here would just hate to hear of a Thai ladyboy we know dying from AIDS. Especially when I think we are actually in a position to convince them with are wallets to always use condoms.

If any of you guys dont think not going with girls who do bareback videos is the way to go, then next time your in Thailand on holidays you could buy a few boxes of condoms and leave them into the bar you most frequented before leaving for your home country as a gesture to encourage safe sex.

[jonstroud]

(doug @ May 05 2010,04:26) Here's something I don't understand about the OP.

Why make a post warning us about a "worrying trend" based on videos you've seen on a couple of bareback websites (which means you've obviously paid for a membership on those sites).

If you are worried about that trend, why did you pay for a membership on those websites? By doing so, you are, in fact, supporting that trend by paying to see it.

Barebacking SHOULD worry you, and therefore you should refuse to support websites that feature it.

By "obviously" you mean you've made an assumption based on rather poor guesswork. You're wrong, and really should have thought things through before posting. I'm not a paying member of any internet site. Period. I'm also not a member by any definition of the term or even visitor to the websites I referred to.

Another site that I probably can't mention here by name presented site rips for download and I visited some preview pages. That's when I noticed the barebackers.

I'm not sure that telling these LBs we won't go with them because they have gone bareback will change attitudes very much. The LBs in question will simply find customers who either don't know about their barebacking sessions or are attracted by them. Forum members can help each other, though, by warning which LBs they know for a fact have gone bareback.