3 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

 

 

We can, read up on it.

You're not circumcised most likely

 

Ok.  No, I am not. 

 

It hasn't gained much traction in UK but I guess there could be cultural reasons here.

1 hour ago, Happy enough said:

i got to the topping bit and felt a bit sick. i'm educated enough thanks and won't be cutting off my foreskin anytime soon. why screw with evolution eh. have a nice evening

I guess you still have your tonsils and wisdom teeth then.

4 minutes ago, amexpat said:

I guess you still have your tonsils and wisdom teeth then.

i actually do!!! funnily enough. no shit

do they still take tonsils out nowadays??

Edited April 4, 20188 yr by Happy enough

1 hour ago, Happy enough said:

i got to the topping bit and felt a bit sick. i'm educated enough thanks and won't be cutting off my foreskin anytime soon. why screw with evolution eh. have a nice evening

So your the hoody type....thats cool. Each to their own;)

Ok.  No, I am not. 
 
It hasn't gained much traction in UK but I guess there could be cultural reasons here.

I'm not suggesting people go and get it done, easier to go on PrEP, but its always the uncircumcised who don't believe it, because they can't face the thought being circumcised may be better

4 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

17 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Ok.  No, I am not. 
 
It hasn't gained much traction in UK but I guess there could be cultural reasons here.

I'm not suggesting people go and get it done, easier to go on PrEP, but its always the uncircumcised who don't believe it, because they can't face the thought being circumcised may be better

I've taken a quick look.  It looks a controversial area with contradictory results,eg, one country where circumcision was common still had comparable rates of infection as a peer country where it was not a common practice.  Honestly, I don't know where the truth lays. WHO seems to think it helps.

23 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I've taken a quick look.  It looks a controversial area with contradictory results,eg, one country where circumcision was common still had comparable rates of infection as a peer country where it was not a common practice.  Honestly, I don't know where the truth lays. WHO seems to think it helps.

I don't think it matters either way.  There are other risk factors which play a bigger part in disease transmission - like soaping up a.s.a.p after unprotected sex.

Makes one wonder what the current HIV carrier rate is among bar girls. In the early 1990's the Infectious Disease specialists often said 40% of Pattaya bar girls were HIV+. Who knows if they were correct. In the public health clinics there were very large numbers of both female's and males with end stage AID's though.

I also wonder what the incidence of HPV is too. Associated with head and neck ca not just cervical and penile ca. and relatively easily transmited compared to HIV although probably less then HVB.

I suspect there are no unbiased statistics on either of the above disease entities since one would need mass screening studies to  know.

So many mongers on this forum claim it's almost impossible to get HIV from prostitutes. Makes you kinda wonder how many mongers  who post here are HIV positive. 

Edited April 4, 20188 yr by theguyfromanotherforum

So many mongers on this forum claim it's almost impossible to get HIV from a prostitutes. Makes you kinda wonder how many mongers are who post here are HIV positive. 

Hopefully everyone on thaivisa gets regular HIV tests

I don't think it matters either way.  There are other risk factors which play a bigger part in disease transmission - like soaping up a.s.a.p after unprotected sex.

Fairy liquid the best?

25 minutes ago, drbill said:

Makes one wonder what the current HIV carrier rate is among bar girls. In the early 1990's the Infectious Disease specialists often said 40% of Pattaya bar girls were HIV+. Who knows if they were correct. In the public health clinics there were very large numbers of both female's and males with end stage AID's though.

I also wonder what the incidence of HPV is too. Associated with head and neck ca not just cervical and penile ca. and relatively easily transmited compared to HIV although probably less then HVB.

I suspect there are no unbiased statistics on either of the above disease entities since one would need mass screening studies to  know.

 

There were a lot of rubbish figures bandied about.  Does anyone honestly believe 40%.?  But you are right: I remember reading that too, and it got repeated and reposted time and time again.  That would be disaster territory for Thailand yet nothing has manifested on that level.  

5 hours ago, Happy enough said:

any cut or graze would increase the chances significantly

 

5 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Provided the girl had HIV in the first place.

 In that case I'm worried, even though it was only a few seconds.

 

4 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Isn't it a bit theoretical?  Is there evidence?

 

Sounds plausible though.

This is the article I was referencing, though I've read this information elsewhere too. This level of specific information requires more of a targetted Internet search, as most information just summarises different types of at risk activity and demographic groups.

http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/fall-2011/recently-infected-individuals-priority-hiv-prevention

17 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

 

 In that case I'm worried, even though it was only a few seconds.

 

Don't worry too much. Obviously it depends where you met the girl, but chances are still low with this kind of exposure. If it was just a graze (not a cut) and it occurred several hours earlier it may well be less vulnerable than the mucous membranes in the urethra. 

 

Once you're at the three month mark go and have a test to put your mind at rest, and perhaps consider switching to a button fly...

 

We got a bleeder: http://youtu.be/IBwTeyZDRos

55 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

 

 In that case I'm worried, even though it was only a few seconds.

 

Well I really don't think you should be.  In the first place it's still rather unlikely she had hiv.  And even clear needle stick injuries have a low transmission rate. Don't blow this out of proportion.

 

I think forums like this can be a little like reading a medical book: before you know it you are convinced you have every affliction known to man

Edited April 4, 20188 yr by mommysboy

10 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Don't worry too much. Obviously it depends where you met the girl, but chances are still low with this kind of exposure. If it was just a graze (not a cut) and it occurred several hours earlier it may well be less vulnerable than the mucous membranes in the urethra. 

 

Once you're at the three month mark go and have a test to put your mind at rest, and perhaps consider switching to a button fly...

 

We got a bleeder: http://youtu.be/IBwTeyZDRos

Did happen several hours earlier, but as we tried with (the only) condom before the unprotected sex, I think the graze or raw patch of skin became irritated and was more like a cut.

 

My only thought now is should I go and buy a course of PEP. As it was under 72 hours ago.

22 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

This is the article I was referencing, though I've read this information elsewhere too. This level of specific information requires more of a targetted Internet search, as most information just summarises different types of at risk activity and demographic groups.

http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/fall-2011/recently-infected-individuals-priority-hiv-prevention

It's a very interesting read and it's something I have thought about before.  There's still more to it than that. Ultimately it is about the amount of hiv in secretions I reckon. I don't know if this correlates with the amount of virus in a newly infected individual, and I would still think that only a few people in a hundred are even capable of passing on the disease at any one time.  I notice this report was way back in 2011.  I don't think it has shaped hiv treatment, rather giving drugs to prevent transmission in the first place seems to be the preferred strategy, though this may also treat those newly infected too.

 

There's something here I reckon.

 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Well I really don't think you should be.  In the first place it's still rather unlikely she had hiv.  And even clear needle stick injuries have a low transmission rate. Don't blow this out of proportion.

She was a bar girl.

 

Don't think I'm blowing it of proportion. I've seen posters on here worried about HIV after receiving oral. This was unprotected sex with a cut / graze involved.

 

I'm not very scared, just weighing up the need to get PEP meds, as it is a decision I need to take now if so (within 72 hours)

1 hour ago, Voodoochile said:

All though... this is kind of illogical way to look at it because one Would think that the part of a working girls body that has seen the most unprotected dick is her mouth not her vagina. So to the ones who think i am nasty or Crazy for going down on them. Think about that, Would you rather put your mouth in a placé  which was in contact with rubber just before or in contact with dick. What do u guys think??

joob joob:*

It's worth pointing out that oral transmission risk of HIV is extremely small regardless of the sex of the recipient, the mucous membranes in the mouth are very protective. Other types of things can certainly be passed on this way though - for instance Michael Douglas got throat cancer from too much repeat exposure to HPV. It's also possible to receive a nasty oral to urethra infection from just sitting back and relaxing - most commonly something of the chlamydia variety. Some types of Hepatitis are transferred easily this way too - anyone who is sexually active really should get the Hep B vaccination at least. 

22 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 even clear needle stick injuries have a low transmission rate

Interesting... any source for this? Cheers

15 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

She was a bar girl.

 

Don't think I'm blowing it of proportion. I've seen posters on here worried about HIV after receiving oral. This was unprotected sex with a cut / graze involved.

 

I'm not very scared, just weighing up the need to get PEP meds, as it is a decision I need to take now if so (within 72 hours)

Well, you would be best immediately posting in the health forum where the mod can help.  I don't suppose it will do any harm taking the drugs for a short while.

30 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

Interesting... any source for this? Cheers

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/workplace/healthcareworkers.html

 

But it's really a case of take your pick.  Some quote higher, some lower risk.

 

And this is with hiv infected people and the skin has definitely been breached- blood to blood I guess.

Edited April 4, 20188 yr by mommysboy

10 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

It's a very interesting read and it's something I have thought about before.  There's still more to it than that. Ultimately it is about the amount of hiv in secretions I reckon. I don't know if this correlates with the amount of virus in a newly infected individual, and I would still think that only a few people in a hundred are even capable of passing on the disease at any one time.  I notice this report was way back in 2011.  I don't think it has shaped hiv treatment, rather giving drugs to prevent transmission in the first place seems to be the preferred strategy, though this may also treat those newly infected too.

 

There's something here I reckon.

 

 

 

 

It wouldn't really be possible to shape HIV treatment with this information, other than to put emphasis on avoiding risky practices and encourage testing. Even if someone tested positive and went on medication immediately, it would be some months before this reduced the person's viral load to safe (non-transmittable) levels. For the first few weeks after someone is infected, there is a time period where the transmitter would be both highly contagious, and yet could still show up negative in a test. The reason in both cases is the same, that the person has the disease but has not yet produced antibodies - therefore they'd have a much higher amount of virus in their body at that point, and the HIV test (which tests for the presence of antibodies) would not detect enough of them to confirm the virus.

 

This question of people having different levels of contagion at different stages of a disease makes complete sense - this is true of all manner of viruses, from the flu to chicken pox.

 

On the subject of certain people becoming super-spreaders, this is certainly true, and applies to all manner of diseases both in the human and animal world. You might find this article interesting - it discusses how 80% of transmissions are spread by just 20% of those infected (known as the 80/20 rule)...

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-super-spreaders-one-in-five-are-responsible-for-the-majority-of-viral-infections-9901102.html

find the girl asap and get her tested.

thats what i did. 

51 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

Did happen several hours earlier, but as we tried with (the only) condom before the unprotected sex, I think the graze or raw patch of skin became irritated and was more like a cut.

 

My only thought now is should I go and buy a course of PEP. As it was under 72 hours ago.

Find the girl asap and get her tested.

thats what i did.

3 minutes ago, Voodoochile said:

Find the girl asap and get her tested.

thats what i did.

But to put this in perspective:

1: There is a small chance she had hiv.

2.  Even if she did there is perhaps just a 20% chance she could pass it on.

3.  Even if we say your exposure was comparable to a needle stick injury there is a low risk.

11 hours ago, PaddyDaddy said:

After 20 beers they all look like Patty..........fuzzy features. If they don't show a clear photo, how will people know if they have had sex with her?

Bang on..I don't want to catch that again ..................

52 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

But to put this in perspective:

1: There is a small chance she had hiv.

2.  Even if she did there is perhaps just a 20% chance she could pass it on.

3.  Even if we say your exposure was comparable to a needle stick injury there is a low risk.

Guess it all depends what kinda person u are worried or more laid back when it comes to health issues. But it is now so easy Quick and cheap to get tested why take a risk. Thats the way i c it

9 hours ago, Hupaponics said:

One thing is interesting.

I read about people (and have a close friend) that reject thai food and how it's handeld. But when it comes to "professionals" he licks and kiss the gals everywhere. 

It's not really the ladies' fault. 

It's the disgusting farang men who force the women to unprotected sex. I feel sorry for the gal, but hope that everyone who have unprotected sex with a bargirl get super gonorrhea or worse (hopefully something that make his dick to drop off fairly quickly). Because this dude will spread the shit to next gal.

 

Darn I dislike (nicer word so the reply won't get deleted) those "men" (the ugly old dudes) that can't get laid in their home country taking advantages of the girls here.

 

 

"force" hmmmmmmm try $$$$$$$$$$$$$