I met a LB who was HIV+

[goldmountain]

(thaibound @ May 04 2008,16:47) uh, 'for fuck's sake...' what? were you going to make a point here or do you just enjoy quoting me?

"Maybe the girl you're about to whack off to" has HIV?
Come on, it's idiotic.

(thaibound @ May 04 2008,16:47) 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.

That's actually not what I was saying. I believe that a reasonable person can estimate risk and this estimate can be meaningful to him in deciding how much risk he is willing to accept.

(thaibound @ May 04 2008,16:47) 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.

The guys here are mostly intelligent adults who can stratify risk to some extent. Our point of departure is that you assert it does not matter if the risk that a prostitute has HIV is "8% or 80%".  By your logic, even if there is an infinitesimal risk of HIV, that is enough of a bullet in the gun to treat her as if she is a loaded weapon.

In this situation, the individual responses will differ... some may feel comfortable fucking with a rubber. Some may see terrible danger in even whacking off to pictures of the girl. Some might have a cooler head and factor in other variables, feeling comfortable with forgoing the use of a condom in some situations but not all.

And as the estimate of risk changes with additional information, the dude with the cooler head can respond accordingly.

(thaibound @ May 04 2008,16:47) "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.

Wow. I will just re-emphasize that the guys here are big boys and they can estimate risks and decide for themselves how to live their lives.

They don't need people like yourself to absurdly wax on about very many LB having 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." And so on.

[goldmountain]

(Tomcat @ May 04 2008,20:10) 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.

I didn't bring the subject of climate change into this thread. Terry made a insightful observation about how the fearmongering with climate change is similar to the fearmongering with HIV... people creating their own hells.

And with respect to your first assertion about why you wrote that bit about hoping for a war to reduce the number of people on earth, I sincerely do not believe you. I think you have been very clear in the past about where you stand with respect to people and climate change.

[terry]

@azza33:

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

1. I'm not trying to "convince" anyone. I just speak out clearly my doubts about "known" facts. That's it. If you feel convinced or not, is entirely your concern, not mine ...

2. You got me wrong. I'm not saying that HIV is not a serious problem in Thailand. I'm just saying that it seems to me that the risks differ decisively  between heterosexual and homosexual "activities" at one hand and heterosexual and homosexual "passivities" (if this word-play is allowed) at the other.

My point is €” and goldmountain got this perfectly right €” that the whole HIV discussion (not only in this thread!) is spoiled by far too many "prophets of doom".

Maybe my view is too sceptical in your opinion €” feel free to disagree! For sure I have no problems at all with other people practising safer sex all the time €” why should I? It's just improving my odds, I'd say ...

I'm just developing a certain "rubber allergy" when I read generalized nightmare postings and rude accusations like "barebacking = murder" (well, I know, it wasn't written explicitly that way, but the meaning was quite obvious). If somebody knows (or seriously suspects) he's HIV+, this may be correct. In any other case it's his or her problem. If a prostitute (GG or LB) is HIV+ and you bareback or get barebacked €” it was entirely your decision, never forget it. And don't blame others for your bad luck.

[azza33]

(terry @ May 05 2008,02:30) My point is €” and goldmountain got this perfectly right €” that the whole HIV discussion (not only in this thread!) is spoiled by far too many "prophets of doom".

Maybe my view is too sceptical in your opinion €” feel free to disagree! For sure I have no problems at all with other people practising safer sex all the time €” why should I? It's just improving my odds, I'd say ...

Terry, i agree with some of what you are saying and think people do get a little overboard and sure you can query some figures thrown around. As really all figures to do with absolute numbers have a large degree of error as they are simply guesstimates at best.

I agree the doomsday stuff is absolute bollocks.
If we assume that 1% of population is HIV+ and the chance of catching infection is 1 in 10,000 when you are the top...

Then on average is a 1,000,000 to 1 chance that you will catch HIV from the person you are shagging.

Assuming for sex workers, a 10% rate of infection amongst sex workers, then the odds are reduced to 100, 000 to 1.

All in all - it just shows you that its bloody hard disease to catch.

Once this basis the doomsayers are clearly off the page...

But statistics mean little for the estimated 600,000 Thais that are currently infected.

I think in my opinion, if you want to go BB, up to the person 100% to take the risks and roll the dice. Nobody has the right to tell you whats the right or wrong ting to be doing especially given how "minimal" the chance of infection.

However, IMHO if you choose to play BB you owe it to everyone to get tested regularly so that if you are infected , you can prevent further spreading by continuing to play BB.

[seamus]

Here's one for you to mull over Mr azza33, You go to Los for 14 nights, you shag 14 different girls, one  could be HIV+,or none at all.Or you go for 14 nights with the same girl every night, who is HIV+.So is it better to be a butterfly or not, I dont know the answer,but it's been buzzing around My small grey matter for a few days. What D'ya think ?


Seamus

[si geena]

I think 14 nights with the same girl, who is inadvertendly HIV+, is likely to be much more risky than 14 different girls, where only 1 is HIV+.

That's my intuitive understanding. Don't tell me this is one of those goats behind the door game.

[thaibound]

*assuming* you have no insider knowledge as to the +/- status of any individual, your chances of becoming infected over the course of 14 acts of intercourse would be *statistically* equal whether they all occurred with the same partner, two each with 7 partners, or with 14 different partners.

however...the clues and indications you get from a partner with regard to her life history and lifestyle can be a very useful factor in determining your potential risk with one partner relative to another. e.g., if she's a tweaker walking beach road at 6am your chances of infection are greater than if she's a tea-totaler who just started work at a well-known bar where they test regularly.

while this seems intuitively and rationally indubitable to me, i have no statistics to support my opinion, so i await goldmountain's disdainful dismissal of my "absurdly wax(ing) on", as he touts the value of relying on general statistics i personally find almost as meaningless as his posts-- the oxymoronic incoherence of which i no longer have the patience to dissect

i will never agree that studying the conflicting reports on what percentage of all sex workers in an entire country are hiv+ can be a better risk guide than an individual evaluation of the circumstances of your specific partner in combination with your own decision with regard to which activities you choose to perform with said partner.

if the fresh scrape on your balls makes blood-to-blood contact with the cut on her tongue, that gold mountain of statistics is a worthless pile of dog doo. so you're a lot better off if the girl with hiv is the one you're whacking off to. and if you think that's absurd, that's because the whole world is absurd -- but some people won't see it until it's been made into a pie chart.

[donnnnnny]

here's another fact (well urban myth) most thais in the ladyboy sceen have thai boyfriends who fuck around bare back and i bet you a fat wad of $$$$ they dont fuck with condoms when with there girlfriends best not to go to thailand at all

[azza33]

(seamus @ May 05 2008,18:29) Here's one for you to mull over Mr azza33, You go to Los for 14 nights, you shag 14 different girls, one could be HIV+,or none at all.Or you go for 14 nights with the same girl every night, who is HIV+.So is it better to be a butterfly or not, I dont know the answer,but it's been buzzing around My small grey matter for a few days. What D'ya think ?


Seamus

Si Geena is correct!!

Fucking BB with the HIV+ gal is more chance of catching!!
in fact.... its a 700-1 chance ... scary?? odds are pretty fucked hey Seamus...
And i reckon nobody of sane disposition would wanna play those odds. (reason its so high is becoz u know she is HIV+, and you have 14 goes at that 10,000 to 1 stat for what its worth)

As for the 14 random with unknown status, i think its around 7000 to 1 chance.....(assuming working girls)

OH and if ur like Billy69 and root 100,000 LB sex workers, you'd have a 100% chance


Oh before you guess i like stats, i want to say i actually deplore them as they are meaningless.....

You can be the unlucky fucker who pops his cherry BB with the wrong LB and get it first time...

Or you could go your entire life and be lucky...

As the above post mentions, there are so many variables that its in the lap of the gods....

[Tomcat]

(goldmountain @ May 05 2008,01:22) i I believe that a reasonable person can estimate risk and this estimate can be meaningful to him in deciding

Thats the biggest heap of bullshit i  have ever read here.
How the hell can the average punter have this information at his finger tips.. like who she is fucking away from the bar and other unknown variables .

Guys who live here may have a better chance of working this out but not the average Joe who reads here. Anyway as long as you are following your own advice Goldmountain thats fine. Its your Cremation....

[terry]

(thaibound @ May 05 2008,19:31)

@Thaibound:

*assuming* you have no insider knowledge as to the +/- status of any individual, your chances of becoming infected over the course of 14 acts of intercourse would be *statistically* equal whether they all occurred with the same partner, two each with 7 partners, or with 14 different partners.

[...]

i will never agree that studying the conflicting reports on what percentage of all sex workers in an entire country are hiv+ can be a better risk guide than an individual evaluation of the circumstances of your specific partner in combination with your own decision with regard to which activities you choose to perform with said partner.

if the fresh scrape on your balls makes blood-to-blood contact with the cut on her tongue, that gold mountain of statistics is a worthless pile of dog doo. so you're a lot better off if the girl with hiv is the one you're whacking off to. and if you think that's absurd, that's because the whole world is absurd -- but some people won't see it until it's been made into a pie chart.

What a perfect summary!

[Freebird]

I really love this thread.

Is fascinating how some bm are trying to calculate over and over again to come up with a figure that makes them sleep better. We aren't scared about the uncomfortable truth, are we?

Sure, another way to lower the risk is excluding the "dangerous" ones. Sure, it's more likely that a lb, doing 100 guys in a month bb will sooner or later catch something. But it can also be the one who had just one condom brake in her life.


My opinion concerning statistics:

1. You were born. How likely was the chance that you were the one in a million sperm that reaches the goal first? Well, you did it.

Ok, thats a little far fetched, what about this two.

2. You are an absolutely responsible driver. You never drive too fast, uncareful, or whatever. One day, you're in a hurry, late for an appoinment. You just think "Hey, I know this road, police hasn't been doing controls there for years, they never got my for anything, WHY SHOULD IT HAPPEN TO ME TODAY?"

Guess where they are doing controls today...

3. You're cheating on your girlfriend/wife since years, you've always been careful. Never done it at your home, always in a hotel or at her place. One day, you can't go to her place because whatever reason, it's just not possible. So, it's Tuesday, your girlfriend/wife is playing tennis with her best friend since 10 years. They never missed a single day, so you decide, the horny fuck you are: "Hey, we got two hours, she's gone and will neverever, under NO circumstances be back before 10pm. NEVER! Let's do it at my place"

Guess who didn't show up to play with your wife/girlfriend today... and guess one more time, who's home earlier today...

Does scenario 2. or 3. remind you of something that happend to you once?

Remember: COINCIDENCE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT STATISTICS!

[Tomcat]

(azza33 @ May 05 2008,20:15) Oh before you guess i like stats, i want to say i actually deplore them as they are meaningless.....

So Stats are meanbingless eh!. If we had no stats then we would all be dead

The next time your near a Lions cage why dont you jump in and thump one of those hairy fuckers on the head with your briefcase  

Statistics show that Lions are dangerous but never mind...its probably all meaningless  

[azza33]

(Tomcat @ May 05 2008,23:28) Statistics show that Lions are dangerous but never mind...its probably all meaningless

Commonsense tells me lions are dangerous....

Stats tell me that 100% of people that fuck with lions end up the worse for wear...

I choose commonsense over trying to be part of the sample base any day Tomcat

[seamus]

Would that mean you got fucked by a lion