I met a LB who was HIV+

[kahuna]

(terry @ May 04 2008,01:44) I think, the more people lose their religios convictions and don't any longer believe in some kind of hell after death, the more they feel urged to make up their own hells right here ...

You believe Thai girls believe in hell?

[terry]

@kahuna:

You believe Thai girls believe in hell?

Well, I didn'r refer specifically to Thai girls, more to us Europeans. On the other hand €” Buddhist also believe in hells. They have an awful lot of them €” have a look.

[bigmick22]

(donnnnnny @ May 03 2008,04:09) BOLLOCKS

ah - so that's where he's going wrong

Seamus - you only have to put the willy inside your ass - not the bollocks too

Hope this helps in your future naughty escapades

[goldmountain]

(terry @ May 04 2008,01:44) And this I know only too well from similar cryptic predictions about climate changes, dying of the woods etc. ...

I think, the more people lose their religios convictions and don't any longer believe in some kind of hell after death, the more they feel urged to make up their own hells right here ...

There is some truth in this for sure. The climate change crowd is one with the faith-based and for all practical purposes, the sick fucks who delight in gays dying from AIDS could as well be the disciples of global warming as Jerry Falwell...

Their motivations may differ but in the end, they are all anti-human preachers of doom.

[manarak]

Why is it interesting for you if girls or LBs do have HIV or not?

As far as I am concerned, I treat all as if they had it. 100%

[kahuna]

(terry @ May 04 2008,04:41) Well, I didn'r refer specifically to Thai girls, more to us Europeans. On the other hand €” Buddhist also believe in hells. They have an awful lot of them €” have a look.

But this thread is about Thai girls...Moreover, that Wikipedia link doesn't have much to do with Thais...

[seamus]

(bigmick22 @ May 03 2008,21:12)

(donnnnnny @ May 03 2008,04:09) BOLLOCKS

ah - so that's where he's going wrong

Seamus - you only have to put the willy inside your ass - not the bollocks too

Hope this helps in your future naughty escapades    

Thanx for the advice Bigmick, I knew I was going wrong somewhere LOL You can tell I'm Irish

[thaibound]

wow.
a thread about lb's with (or without) HIV now includes pot-shots at the religious right (fuck 'em all i say ) as well as those who believe the science behind human-induced factors in climate change?

and since when did the religious right become "believers" that man changes anything on this God-created planet that is, after all, barely 5,000 years old (according to their own divinely-inspired literature) and thus too young to have experienced any of the ice ages "scientists" "believe" have occurred in the past.

i think the absurd range of "opinion" on these matters speaks for itself with regard to how much weight i'd give any of it when it comes to my own decisions on anything from condom use to reducing my carbon footprint.

there may well be no such thing as safe sex. if it can't kill you, it still might condemn you to one of those "hells" that seem so feared (beloved?) by many.

and the climate is changing. whether it's due to too many jets flying without passengers or God smoking a doobie and blowing it into the atmosphere, i can't say with any certainty.

but on the subject of LB's being HIV+ -- many are.
very many are.
a whole damn bunch of them are.
maybe the one you fucked last night.
maybe the one whose photo you're about to whack off to.
does it *really* matter whether the odds are 7% or 11% or 80%? i mean really. what damn difference does it make?
it only matters to those who think russian roulette is a different game when you put more than one bullet in the 6-gun.
it only takes one.
the only choice you get to make is whether or not you want to play the game.

[bigmick22]

(seamus @ May 03 2008,16:10) Thanx for the advice Bigmick, I knew I was going wrong somewhere LOL You can tell I'm Irish  

it's a typical newbie mistake - we've all done it

should have read the forums more before you came to LOS

[azza33]

(Tomcat @ May 03 2008,23:26) Your figures are for female sex workers which makes the 7.7 per cent meaniingless . lets face it the count for LBs who are male for the purposes of this thread would be higher for obvious reasons( obvious to me anyway)

Agree 100% Tomcat.. in the original quote given by BAM the reference was to 200 Thai girls....

Now i am not sure if he meant LB or GG...

But at any rate, i decided to read more about HIV in LOS... scared the shit out of me in some respects....

Used to be 2% of Thai population were HIV+
Now they estimate 1.4%

And now for the total shocker...

28% of MSM (men who have sex with men - in Bangkok and yes that includes LB lovers) are HIV positive.

If this is the case, its a pretty scary number.

[azza33]

(terry @ May 04 2008,01:44) The whole article is inconsistent if looked up carefully. Just one example:

After a national campaign to increase condom use during commercial sex, the use rate for brothel-based sex workers had reached more than 90 percent in 1998, but dropped to 51 percent by 2005.

An estimated 18,000 Thais were newly infected with HIV in 2005, a 10 percent drop from 2004.

Terry are you trying to convince yourself that HIV is not a serious problem in Thailand?

Mate... you gotta re-read what you have just written...

They are not dependent figures: one is talking about use of condoms in brothels, i.e. eduction and awareness of sex workers to the prevention and spread of HIV.

The second figure you are quoting is the New infection levels of HIV across Thailand- this includes everyone outside the brothel based sex workers, includes average Thais, drug users, and GG and gays.

~~~~

Personally from my take, on reading Thailand has worked very hard to reduces HIV rate from 2% in 1984 down to 1% today. This is been done through an education and awareness campaign.

The point of the first quote is that clearly the message has been lost in the brothel based sex industry, and that is a point of concern.
That does not mean the point has been lost across Thailand as a whole. Hence maybe why HIV rates are continuing to drop.
Nevertheless, its important to focus on the higher risk areas and re-educate as necessary.
Some area like the IDU which have HIV rates at 30-50% are the no hope areas and how you fix that is at a loss to me.

[goldmountain]

(thaibound @ May 04 2008,06:17) but on the subject of LB's being HIV+ -- many are.
very many are.
a whole damn bunch of them are.
maybe the one you fucked last night.
maybe the one whose photo you're about to whack off to.

Oh for fuck's sake...

(thaibound @ May 04 2008,06:17) does it *really* matter whether the odds are 7% or 11% or 80%? i mean really. what damn difference does it make?
it only matters to those who think russian roulette is a different game when you put more than one bullet in the 6-gun.
it only takes one.
the only choice you get to make is whether or not you want to play the game.

Normal people take risks all the time... there is risk in smoking, boozing, whoring, crossing the street, riding a motorbike...

Risk is not a Dubya-ish, black and white issue... it does make a difference if the risk is 1% or 11% or 80%, and a person can choose for himself how much risk he's willing to tolerate. Like most things in life, many factors affect a particular risk. Even if there is a 100% chance a girl has HIV, this is not equivalent to her risk of transmitting it, and this risk of transmitting the virus is not the same as the risk of her partner seroconverting.

Yes, wearing a raincoat is probably good advice. But the religiosity around here, and the fervor about proselytizing the danger, coupled with the quoting of suspect numbers from such luminous sites as Wikipedia, is bringing this academic discussion close to the Ziggy Zone...

[goldmountain]

(thaibound @ May 04 2008,06:17) a thread about lb's with (or without) HIV now includes pot-shots at the religious right (fuck 'em all i say ) as well as those who believe the science behind human-induced factors in climate change?

and since when did the religious right become "believers" that man changes anything on this God-created planet that is, after all, barely 5,000 years old (according to their own divinely-inspired literature) and thus too young to have experienced any of the ice ages "scientists" "believe" have occurred in the past.

i think the absurd range of "opinion" on these matters speaks for itself with regard to how much weight i'd give any of it when it comes to my own decisions on anything from condom use to reducing my carbon footprint.

and the climate is changing. whether it's due to too many jets flying without passengers or God smoking a doobie and blowing it into the atmosphere, i can't say with any certainty.

unlike the more zealous-minded, you admit to uncertainty...

the funny thing is that the environ-mental fanatics quote a "consensus" of scientists who are "more than 90% certain" that human activity is driving climate change.

The fact these scientists have chosen 90% as their point of significance is HIGHLY REVEALING. By convention, most scientists will not conclude anything unless they are at least 95% confident in their observations. Choosing 90% is a point of convenience that gives the "scientists" wiggle room, while simultaneously going over the heads of most of the sheep.

Further, for both the climate change industry and the Jesus freaks, the prophecies of moralistic doom-mongers are predicated on the immorality of others.

For the climate change industry, the world is catastrophically warming and human sin is the cause. For the Jesus freaks, the world is also coming to an end, and sinner homosexuals are the cause. For both movements, salvation can be achieved by shedding human blood.

For those who dispute the existence of such an anti-human mindset within the climate change movement, look no further than Tomcat's post here, in which he fantasized about a war between the two most populous developing nations, so as to reduce the number of humans and ostensibly forestall global warming.

To wish death on a massive scale, and among some of the poorest people on earth, so as to keep one's white-bred ass from getting toasted via global warming, that's sick.

[thaibound]

(goldmountain @ May 04 2008,00:29)

(thaibound @ May 04 2008,06:17) but on the subject of LB's being HIV+ -- many are.
very many are.
a whole damn bunch of them are.
maybe the one you fucked last night.
maybe the one whose photo you're about to whack off to.

Oh for fuck's sake...

uh, 'for fuck's sake...' what? were you going to make a point here or do you just enjoy quoting me?

(thaibound @ May 04 2008,06:17) does it *really* matter whether the odds are 7% or 11% or 80%? i mean really. what damn difference does it make?
it only matters to those who think russian roulette is a different game when you put more than one bullet in the 6-gun.
it only takes one.
the only choice you get to make is whether or not you want to play the game.

Normal people take risks all the time... there is risk in smoking, boozing, whoring, crossing the street, riding a motorbike...

Risk is not a Dubya-ish, black and white issue... it does make a difference if the risk is 1% or 11% or 80%, and a person can choose for himself how much risk he's willing to tolerate. Like most things in life, many factors affect a particular risk. Even if there is a 100% chance a girl has HIV, this is not equivalent to her risk of transmitting it, and this risk of transmitting the virus is not the same as the risk of her partner seroconverting.

again i don't understand your quoting me. first you say the percentages quoted *do* matter then proceed to explain how they do *not* matter because there are so many other factors involved as to render them virtually meaningless -- which was, after all, the point i was making in the first place.
i don't really disagree with anything you say, i'm just confused that your framing of your apparent agreement with me seems to imply some disagreement.
i still affirm that whether a report puts the likelihood of your paid sex partner's having HIV at 8% or 80% (based upon the general population of her co-workers), one should base absolutely *no* decisions upon that statistic -- even if you knew it to be accurate -- which you clearly do not.

Yes, wearing a raincoat is probably good advice. But the religiosity around here, and the fervor about proselytizing the danger, coupled with the quoting of suspect numbers from such luminous sites as Wikipedia, is bringing this academic discussion close to the Ziggy Zone...

"Yes...But..."?
personally i find Ziggy's posts much more cogent than your mockery ("for fuck's sake", "yawn", etc.) of the points i made. at least when ziggy says he disagrees, he then proceeds to disagree. i don't know what the hell you're trying to say. and if you didn't punctuate it with perpetual quotes from my own post, i'd have ignored it for the repetitive posturing it is.

[Tomcat]

(goldmountain @ May 04 2008,14:34) Tomcat's post here in which he fantasized

Man you are an idiot Fred...I posted that to hook some wishy washy liberal ... i didnt expect you, Mother Theresa, to take the bait. Also whats the point of bringing Global warming into a HIV thread.

You want to start a war buddy i suggest you pick on someones else