AIDS isn't a problem anymore!

[thaibound]

(princeshow @ Apr. 29 2010,19:22) Receptive anal sex amongst gay men, partner unknown status
0.27% (1:370)

Receptive anal sex with condom, gay men, partner unknown status
0.18% (1:555)

i'm no epidemiologist, but i can not believe these stats can be correct.
wearing a condom only reduces your risk by 33%? no way.


this type of misinformation will do nothing to help the cause of those who insist on condoms, condoms, condoms. might as well just fuck bareback two days and engage in abstinence on the third. that would equate to the same 'odds'.

[thaibound]

(whore @ May 04 2010,18:05) 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.

i don't think it's 'the way to go'

if you're going to 'play the odds' (per your example of being dealt pocket aces once every 212 hands) -- then you should complete the thought and recognize that fucking a ladyboy who has just been tested for a bb video is going to be to *some* degree "safer" than fucking a ladyboy who has never been tested, even given the tiny, remote, and i'll just say virtually impossible likelihood that the non-porn actress has never fucked bareback off-camera.

even using condoms, there remains *some* possibility of contagion, and that possibility can not help but be substantially reduced if my partner could only have been infected in the last 4-6 weeks rather than in the last 4-6 years.

so, while i do *not* encourage bareback performances, the bottom line for me would have to be that knowing the lovely ladyboy i'm about to ball just did a video is in no way going to increase my safety concerns.

and, btw, at last year's Big Bash i gave away more than 100 condoms -- though a few of the BM's complained they were "too thick" i do think most of them got used by a number of lovely ladyboys who i was pleased to see snapped them up without hesitation.

[whore]

(Thaibound @ Jun. 07 2010,02:06)

and, btw, at last year's Big Bash i gave away more than 100 condoms -- though a few of the BM's complained they were "too thick" i do think most of them got used by a number of lovely ladyboys who i was pleased to see snapped them up without hesitation.
Online

That was a cool thing to do Thaibound, fair play to you.

I remember I was with a ladyboy from Bangkok and she got condoms from 7/11 in a black box. Durex king power or something along those lines. They were tiny and all 3 of them broke while putting them on because I have a big cock. So there i was on the 59th floor of my hotel naked with a raging horn on me with no condoms. Bareback was offered at that time, but I declined. Not much point in that story apart from a chance to gloat about my big penis.

[spare wheel]

i dont have that prob, my cock fits all condoms
and gives me great pleasure

[Jake_Sully]

(alyssats @ Jun. 06 2010,14:13) and just an added info i was even rejected by clientelle sometimes because i only safe sex, weird right?

Their loss.

People can have the weirdest fetishes when it comes to playing with dangerous stuff.. from base jumping to bdsm to no condoms.

Personally the only time to use no protection would be if I knew my partner and I were exclusive and previously tested negative atleast twice.

[bangkoksins]

My favourite LB, and a very popular one it seems, loves to bareback. In fact I have never been with her when she does not try to do it bareback. Starts off with a condom and then she says she prefers without etc etc. She is the best I have ever had, and she is still as hot as hell despite her age. A very strong will is required.

It is very easy in the light of day to say X but when all the numbers fall in the right combination you can easily get carried away.

This lady is extremely well known and the best I have ever had, and to be fair to her she does say she has removed the condom and you do have the choice of whether you would like her to continue f'ing your ass.

[tomscam]

The decision to go bareback or not boils down to whether the punter wishes to take his chances or not. If you fuck LB's BB a lot then you may very well get infected. Whilst it's sad that people get infected chances are that our Thai brothers and sisters aren't concerned about this as much as the average farang. I haven't met a Thai yet who has insisted on condoms or mentioned HIV or any other STD's. It just doesn't appear to be prerogative for them.

Maybe it's because of the whole reincarnation belief that they act this way but buying a box of condoms for them to use for later appointments would be completely naive and a total waste of money. If you have heaps of spare cash and envisage yourself as some sort of do-good-er then why don't you take them down to the doctors to get a full sexual health check?

[Bumpa STIKKA]

(thaibound @ Jun. 07 2010,02:06) and, btw, at last year's Big Bash i gave away more than 100 condoms...

I still have mine!

[tomscam]

(whore @ Jun. 07 2010,06:27) (Thaibound @ Jun. 07 2010,02:06)

and, btw, at last year's Big Bash i gave away more than 100 condoms -- though a few of the BM's complained they were "too thick"  i do think most of them got used by a number of lovely ladyboys who i was pleased to see snapped them up without hesitation.
Online

That was a cool thing to do Thaibound, fair play to you.

I remember I was with a ladyboy from Bangkok and she got condoms from 7/11 in a black box. Durex king power or something along those lines. They were tiny and all 3 of them broke while putting them on because I have a big cock. So there i was on the 59th floor of my hotel naked with a raging horn on me with no condoms. Bareback was offered at that time, but I declined. Not much point in that story apart from a chance to gloat about my big penis.

Hilarious

[alyssats]

i love condoms my fave is durex double protection in a light blue box it never or impossible to break

by the way ive seen a guy here give me a negative feedback because i dont let him fuck my ass, the reason for that is because he only wants to fuck me bareback and he said he will double the pay but i say no. and then suddenly he give me a negative feedback when he should me thanking me for being clean and safe. uneducated and uncivilized people lol just joking

[whore]

Who is he and we will tar and feather him?

(Am only joking though you shouldnt say who he is)

[transcebu]

As shown earlier in this thread, here is the 'accepted' risk, according to scientific studies:

Insertive anal sex, gay men, partner unknown status = 0.06% (1:1666)

Insertive anal sex with condom, gay men, partner unknown status = 0.04% (1:2500)

More complete figures here: http://www.aidsmap.com/cms1324038.aspx

Author: Vittinghoff E et al.
Year: 1999
Title: Per-contact risk of human immunodeficiency virus transmission between male sexual partners.
Citation: American Journal of Epidemiology 150: 306-311

Of course one may deny the credibility of these apparently accepted figures, but it seems these are better evidence that the mere assuming that condom use guarantees protection and bare-backing is 'extremely' dangerous by comparison.

These figures indicate that one may bareback 2 times with the same risk as having protected anal sex 3 times. If that's the case, why all the condemnation of barebackers.

Note that the risks for the receiver, while about 3 times greater, follow a similar trend. Receiving bareback is not tremendously more dangerous than receiving using a condom.

Argue the data, not my pointing them out. I'd be happy for anyone to provide alternative studies that support the claim that protected sex is much safer than unprotected sex.

[princeshow]

(thaibound @ Jun. 07 2010,02:52)

(princeshow @ Apr. 29 2010,19:22) Receptive anal sex amongst gay men, partner unknown status
0.27% (1:370)

Receptive anal sex with condom, gay men, partner unknown status
0.18% (1:555)

i'm no epidemiologist, but i can not believe these stats can be correct.
wearing a condom only reduces your risk by 33%? no way.


this type of misinformation will do nothing to help the cause of those who insist on condoms, condoms, condoms.  might as well just fuck bareback two days and engage in abstinence on the third. that would equate to the same 'odds'.

You have misunderstood the information, Thaibound

The key phrase in the section you quoted is "partner unknown status"
Some, perhaps the majority of those partners are going to be HIV negative and therefore the condom isn't actually providing protection against HIV in these cases. This explains the difference of only 33%.

http://www.aidsmap.com/cms1324038.aspx

The data in the table here is given for sex with an infected partner but no information about risk reduction with a condom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

[razrman]

(transcebu @ Jun. 09 2010,11:35) ......
Argue the data, not my pointing them out. I'd be happy for anyone to provide alternative studies that support the claim that protected sex is much safer than unprotected sex.

I'm quoting from the very same site transcebu mentioned i.e. http://www.aidsmap.com/cms1177182.aspx

Consistently-used condoms provide significant protection against HIV, pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The degree of protection they offer against HIV and STIs is significantly better than any other single prevention method, taken in isolation, other than sexual abstinence or complete mutual monogamy between two people who have tested negative for HIV.
It goes on to say...
Condoms used 100% of the time, though not necessarily 100% perfectly (i.e. with usual rates of breakage, slippage and so on) provide protection of about 80-85% against HIV (uncertainty range: 76%-93%). In other words for every 100 cases of HIV infection that would happen without condom use, about 15 (range: 7-24) would happen when condoms are used consistently.


So which is which now?

Incidentally, good for you alyssats   you're a responsible person.

[andyroma]

i care myself...i use condom always..