Jump to content
Terry4

Are you going bareback now.?

Recommended Posts

 "what about the boys" is sheer hypocrisy, yes what the poster is doing is very wrong but what we are all doing is very wrong, you "model" sex tourists can kid yourselves all you like.

 

 

This is the entire crux of the matter. I can understand that you are distressed by what you view as a moral dilemma. I do not view my sex life as conflicted by morals that came into play with early Christianity. I do not allow antiquated church dogma to rule my modern existence. I will hold with the Greeks and the Romans and go on with my own life.

 

Frankly, I don't think that either myself or others are doing anything wrong.  "very wrong" - why? There is a reason for the age of consent laws. Are you saying that an over 18-year-old Vietnamese boy I meet in Srewboys, take to dinner, and engage in totally consensual sex is a morally fraught act because I'm gay? Would the act be better for you if I did it at home? Well, I do. What if I leave my home and go to another city in my country and do the same? Is it because I cross a border or two borders? Is there something about travel that disturbs you? I've done the same thing in London, Amsterdam - in every large city in the World.

 

Actually, I did not respond to the OP to either defend or defame sex tourism. Frankly, I think the whole idea is preposterous. The college idea of "spring break" in the US is built around sex and drinking, in short, vacation. As long as rape does not rear its ugly head I find it nothing more than human nature. 

 

You can disagree with this. That's fine and I would never raise an argument against your own dearly held beliefs. I don't even care if you consider me and my friends to be aging sodomites. That's all fine with me. I find it a little shameful that you use your own beliefs to declare the rest of us to be hypocrites. But, that is your choice.

 

The sole reason I responded is that you are conflating our perfectly consensual sexual choices with endangering our partners by going without adequate protection. Frankly, there is probably no such thing as safe sex since bacteria from the new world made it to the old. But, everyone I'm friends with engages in responsible safer sex and, despite your intemperate accusations, do take the boy into account. I have never discussed acts with a boy and tried to use money no buy his consent. No, I move on to someone who is more compatible with me. Surprise! I have better memories with someone who is also enjoying himself and we do it as safely as we can.

 

In fact, when you told your story of accidental, almost incidental, unprotected sex. I pointed out that it is exactly those situations which make prep so valuable. My idea of a "dislike button" had nothing to do with you but was a general idea that in addition to liking a post accumulating to a "popular" rating a button showing disagreement with ANY idea would be a valuable addition.

 

In summation:  Please don't turn to the tiresome argument of my perceived morality when we are discussing a sound medical precaution.

ok Paborn, i read your comments and accept them

 

Yes I have an issue with my morals and my behaviour and feel guilty but my wish is always not to harm a soul on this planet,

 

I did not choose to find young slim thai guys attractive but accept that I do and behave as i do because i am a "rich westerner"

 

i may find it hard to read when I see what i perceive as "hypocricy" but of course that's my problem.

 

I will still stick to my original post though highlighting how easy it was to have BB sex and how Thai guys are using prep or what they think is prep and that the OP is wrong in his behaviour towards the thai guys but maybe not wrong for using prep.

 

unprotected sex is going to be more widespread with prep and as a sex tourist I am better to be aware of this.

 

I know prostitution is "the oldest profession in the world" and now i have discovered the delights of "fun" with Thai guys i want more and as long as no one at home  gets to know and the Thai guy always leaves me wanting to return then i can live with that, after all we are a long time dead.

 

sorry if any of my words bothered or upset anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry if any of my words bothered or upset anyone?

 

Not at all.  Two people can disagree about anything and not impune the motives of either.  You're right that unprotected sex might become more widespread. That only heightens our need to be vigilant.  I don't believe that you would consciously act inappropriately but don't become a supporter of those who would.

 

Please accept my apologies if you think I was personally arguing with your personally held moral principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just got back from Las Vegas and played much roulette. 92% protection rate sucks! The house edge is about 7% at the Venetian.

 

Almost everyone loses over time. That’s why the casinos make money over time. Just a matter of time before you become infected.

 

On a bright note, I won over 3 thousand from the greedy casinos, betting America football and roulette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back from Las Vegas and played much roulette. 92% protection rate sucks! The house edge is about 7% at the Venetian.

 

Almost everyone loses over time. That’s why the casinos make money over time. Just a matter of time before you become infected.

 

On a bright note, I won over 3 thousand from the greedy casinos, betting America football and roulette.

A "trick" question to ponder ...

 

Given that the infection probability (as mentioned) is low for a single encounter for those people on Prep but will be much higher for multiple encounters, how is it that a similar low starting winning probability in casino will get even lower over time? Shouldn't it be the case that the winning probability goes up for multiple bets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a mathematician and college probability courses are a very long way off. But, I think you have it reversed. The casino edge is that you lose: 7%;  over time that figure accrues and the probability that as you play you will, inevitably, lose is the cornerstone of casino profits. Thus the best advice has always been when you're ahead, cash in and go home.

 

The Prep probability is that you don't acquire the virus, that probability goes down with numerous encounters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

`The Prep probability is that you don't acquire the virus, that probability goes down with numerous encounters.`

 

Wrong ....The probability remains the same, no matter how many encounters .. Just as the Roulette wheel has no memory, the virus does not know how many encounters you have had ...The odds remain the same for every encounter ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand the math of probability:

 

Curtis wrote this quite well _ see his post above.

 

Then consider the cumulative probability of contracting HIV with a 10% prophylactic failure rate in population which is approximately 30% poz. The chance of contracting HIV on any one occasion is 10%x30%=3%.  The chance of avoiding contracting HIV on multiple occasions with multiple random partners drawn from this population is 97%-to-the-power-of-n, where n is the number of partners you sleep with. The chance of contracting HIV at least one time is 1-(97%-to-the-power-of-n). 

 

Here are the odds of contracting HIV over multiple partners:

 

# Partners                             Prob of No Infection             Prob of Infection

a moment’s forgetfulness                     97%                                3%

7  a relaxed week in Boystown                            81%                                19%

14 an energetic week                                            65%                                35%

28 a repeat visit                                 43%                                 57%

58 a third visit                                   18%                                 82%

100 a dedicated orgiastic month                4.75%                             95.25%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Lol ...Curtis could be a very rich man then, as all he has to do is place a bet on a roulette wheel approximately  every 36 spins, and he will be quids in .

 

 The same odds apply to every encounter ..

 The latest findings anyway suggest that prep is between 92% and 99% effective in preventing infection, and that the failures could   be due to lack of discipline in pill taking regime ..  

  It is suggested that prep could be 100 % effective ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that CurtisD.

I have a question about your use of cumulative risk to determine the probability of transmission.

If I flip a coin the chance of it being heads is 50%.

If I flip 100 coins and then flip another the chance of it being heads is still 50%. The results of the previous coin tosses do not affect the probability of the outcome of a new coin toss.

Therefore if the risk of PrEP failing in one encounter is 8%, as you say, then why would it be any greater for subsequent encounters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its simple. Its about statistic and probability. So we are talking about sample size. Using coin toss as example isnt a good idea since success and fail has the same exact odds.

 

Let me use another example to explain the logic. Throwing a die, you got 1/6 odds to get one number. If success criteria is u getting number 6, then your odds for 1 event is 1/6, and failure is getting any other number, and the odds Is 5/6. Now if u have 100 number of events, meaning u throw the die 100 times, and success criteria is for you to get number 6 at least once, then this is where cumulative probability comes in. To put it simply, you have much higher chance of getting 6 one time the more number of tries you are given.

 

Now to put back into perspective without going into the math, success criteria is getting infected by HIV at least once. Odds is 8% for 1 event. If u have 100 tries (sex encounters) odds that u get infected at least once, will be higher the more tries u have. Sadly, the reality is, it only take one time for you to get the virus and u are with the virus for life. Its a reminder for me and for all of us here that probability is just that, probability. It does means u can still get infected the first time u try but it can also mean you will never get infected at all even if u never where condom nor take prep. It is calculated based on historical data or experimetal data, and its just a way to emphasize the likelihood of one getting infected.

 

Now if u think luck is always with you, i cant stop you, but know that for 30% thai guys, the luck isnt with them, so good luck to any of you who think prep is enough protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that CurtisD.

I have a question about your use of cumulative risk to determine the probability of transmission.

If I flip a coin the chance of it being heads is 50%.

If I flip 100 coins and then flip another the chance of it being heads is still 50%. The results of the previous coin tosses do not affect the probability of the outcome of a new coin toss.

Therefore if the risk of PrEP failing in one encounter is 8%, as you say, then why would it be any greater for subsequent encounters?

Finnseventy, Spoon has it right.

 

It is the difference between the probability of a single event and the probability of a sequence of events. They are very different things and the fact that people don't get this difference helps casinos, who often show the results of the last several spins of the roulette wheel in the hope that people seeing three Red in a row will be encouraged to bet big on Black thinking it must be more likely. Well, while the probability of four Red in a row is small, you are not betting on four-red-in-a-row, you are betting on Red in the next spin, which is still 50% (less a little for 0 and 00 depending on the quality of casino at which you play). 

 

In discussing PrEP we are making a bet on both the current and the long term probability. We are betting on PrEP not failing us in both the current encounter (92% chance) and in all our encounters, the probability of which is 92%-to-the-power-of-n where n is the number of encounters.

 

If you tossed a coin 100 times and they were all heads, then (I) yes, the probability of a head in the next toss is still 50% but (ii) the probability of 100 heads in a row is so small that you would have a crowd around you. You would be in the Guinness Book of World Records Think about it, if you got 10 heads in a row you would think it was pretty special, let alone 100!

 

I looked for the record number of heads-in-a-row on line and could not find anything, although apparently the record straight run of Red on the Roulette Wheel in Monte Carlo is somewhere in the 30s, which suggests the record run of heads may be around there too.

 

Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead has Guildenstern flipping a coin while Rosencrantz calls 'heads'. Eventually they get to 92-heads-in-a-row with Guildenstern increasingly concerned and Rosencrantz's money pouch bulging.  Someone in a blog has asked how likely this is.  Quoting the blog:

 

 It is indeed very unlikely to throw 92 heads in a row – perhaps even more unlikely than you might guess at first.  Assuming that the probability of any one coin landing heads is 0.5, and that the coin throws are mutually independent of one another, the probability of 92 coins landing heads in a row is equal to 0.5-to-the-power-of-92 – that is, 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 ... 92 times.  And that is a very small number – approximately 0.0000000000000000000000000002 or 1 in 5000 trillion trillion.  This figure is too small to even properly get one’s head around.  This is (much) less than the chance of two people being asked to randomly choose a single grain of sand from anywhere on the Earth and happening to choose exactly the same one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic analyses. Thanks guys. I could never have worked all that out (and I happen to love Rosenkranz and Guildenstern are Dead)!

 

Id like to add one point. I am against barebacking even with PREP. However the Avert statistic is that the % of msm in Bangkok is about 28.6%. In Thailand as a whole it is 9.15%. It does not analyse other cities. My guess is that Pattaya is likely to be around the same as Bangkok with Chiang Mai not far behind. Cannot guess about other cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much understand the explanation of probabity as described by Curtis and I thank him for this. I then think back to my own experience of having unprotected anal sex during my first three visits (totalling about 12 weeks) to Pattaya in 2001 and 2002. At a conservative estimiate I think I must have topped around 30 boys sans condom in that period. Doing a bit of calculating of probability, taking Curtis’ statistics, it would seem that I was extremely lucky to avoid HIV or another STD but I did. Maybe the risk varies to a significant degree between different people, and I wonder if I an not susceptible to becoming infected ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much understand the explanation of probabity as described by Curtis and I thank him for this. I then think back to my own experience of having unprotected anal sex during my first three visits (totalling about 12 weeks) to Pattaya in 2001 and 2002. At a conservative estimiate I think I must have topped around 30 boys sans condom in that period. Doing a bit of calculating of probability, taking Curtis’ statistics, it would seem that I was extremely lucky to avoid HIV or another STD but I did. Maybe the risk varies to a significant degree between different people, and I wonder if I an not susceptible to becoming infected ?.

There is 0% chance of contracting the virus if your partner is not carrying the virus. So out of your 30 guys, perhaps a significant number of them dont have it, or yeah you are simpy lucky. I dont know about hiv susceptibility of a person to the virus, itll be an interesting read if there's a research done on it but that will means exposing the virus to willing volunteers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much understand the explanation of probabity as described by Curtis and I thank him for this. I then think back to my own experience of having unprotected anal sex during my first three visits (totalling about 12 weeks) to Pattaya in 2001 and 2002. At a conservative estimiate I think I must have topped around 30 boys sans condom in that period. Doing a bit of calculating of probability, taking Curtis’ statistics, it would seem that I was extremely lucky to avoid HIV or another STD but I did. Maybe the risk varies to a significant degree between different people, and I wonder if I an not susceptible to becoming infected ?.

 

Travellerdave,  I think it is a bit soon to think of changing your name to TravellerClark and seeking out your long lost parents on Krypton.  :)

 

It is more likely your experience falls within the bounds of normal probability with a smidge of luck thrown in.

 

After 30 encounters in a 30% poz population, there is a 99.998% chance that you had sex with at least one poz partner. However, contact does not imply infection and the chance of becoming infected from this contact depends on a wide range of factors: 

   * The type of sex. You were top, so less risk than bottom.

   * Viral load of partner. Anywhere from 33% chance of infection for a full viral load partner to a very small chance for a 

      partner with an undetectable viral load.

   * Presence of STDs

   * etc, etc

 

My guess is that you are just a guy with normal luck.

 

There are some people with a genetic protection against HIV, but not many, so I would not count on being one of the few. Below is a quote from a 2016 article on this.

 

 

Researchers are trying to find out why some people carry a genetic mutation that makes them highly resistant to HIV infection. This mutation, called Delta32, keeps a protein called CCR5 from rising to the surface of the immune system’s T cells. When CCR5 is on the surface of the cell, HIV is able to latch on to it and infect the cell; when it is not, the cell’s “door” is effectively closed to HIV.

Very few people have this genetic variation, which some scientists think has been inherited from ancestors who survived the massive bubonic plague in Europe centuries ago. About 1% of Caucasians have it, and it is even rarer in Native Americans, Asians, and Africans. A 2005 report indicated that 1% of people descended from Northern Europe are virtually immune to AIDS.

Those lucky enough to be resistant must inherit the HIV-shielding genes from both parents, though having only one parent with the mutation still leaves a child better prepared to defend HIV than having none. At least one genetic testing company, 23AndMe.com still does the HIV immunity test (among their battery of tests, not as a stand alone), though many companies that once catered specifically to gay men for the HIV immunity test have closed down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My sister was tested and has the delta 32 gene, which I assume means I have it. I’ve had hundreds of unsafe sex episodes with guys and at my advanced age I’m still hiv negative. But that’s my doc saying it was unsafe. I don’t believe receptive oral is very risky.

 

My nephew told me it’s about one in a hundred who have it. I guess I could use it more than my sister,ha ha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My sister was tested and has the delta 32 gene, which I assume means I have it."

 

Sorry, that doesn't follow. On average, you only share half your sister's genes. (If you had all of them, you'd be a girl ;-)

 

Your sister has the delta 32 *mutation* in one or both of her CCR5 *genes*.

We all have two copies of that gene, one from each of our parents, who also have two copies...

At conception we get a random 50-50 choice of one of our father's two CCR5 genes and one of our mother's.

 

The fact that your sister has the mutation means that one or both parents has the mutation on one or both genes.

So there are four possibilities, with rapidly decreasing probability:

(1) one parent has the mutation on one gene, the other hasn't - 1%

(2) each parent has the mutation on one gene - 0.01%

(3) one parent has the mutation on both genes, the other hasn't - 0.01%

(4) one parent has the mutation on both genes, the other has it on one - 0.0001%

(5) both parents have it on both genes - 0.000001%

 

(assuming the allele frequency of the mutation is 1%, and your parents aren't closely related, e.g. some sort of cousins)

 

The probability that you have the mutation in each case is:

(1) 50% - one throw out of two you get the mutation from the one parent who has it

(2) 75% - one throw out of four, you get two unmutated copies

(3, 4) 100% - one parent has the mutation on both genes, so you are guaranteed one of them.

 

But to be protected you need the mutation on both genes, and the probabilities of that are

(1, 3) 0% - one parent has two unmutated genes, so you are bound to get one of them

(2) 25% - one time in four you get the mutated gene from both parents

(4) 50% - one parent has both mutated and unmutated genes, so fifty-fifty whether you get an unmutated one

(5) 100% - neither parent has the unmutated gene.

 

[E&OE]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been a very interesting topic to follow.

But getting back to the OP - if people are going bareback on the basis of being "safe" because they're on PrEP, then what's to stop someone just saying they're on Prep in order to persuade their sex partner that it's safe to have unprotected sex with them?

This puts the partner in a dilemma - is it safe or not?

This use of PrEP could lead to more unprotected sex and consequently more infection by HIV if it becomes the norm for guys to agree to go bareback just because someone says they're on PrEP, when in reality they may not be.

There is a lot of unprotected sex going on in Thailand. A guy I was with in August told me the four previous times he had sex were with other Thais and they all insisted on going bareback. Food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been a very interesting topic to follow.

But getting back to the OP - if people are going bareback on the basis of being "safe" because they're on PrEP, then what's to stop someone just saying they're on Prep in order to persuade their sex partner that it's safe to have unprotected sex with them?

This puts the partner in a dilemma - is it safe or not?

This use of PrEP could lead to more unprotected sex and consequently more infection by HIV if it becomes the norm for guys to agree to go bareback just because someone says they're on PrEP, when in reality they may not be.

There is a lot of unprotected sex going on in Thailand. A guy I was with in August told me the four previous times he had sex were with other Thais and they all insisted on going bareback. Food for thought.

Whilst it may have been a “ interesting “ topic to follow there are unfortunately certain members who take posts on these forums rather too personally .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...