Men catching HIV from women in Thailand

[jack71]

14 hours ago, BenDeCosta said:

If you don't to want to deal with with the risks of contracting HIV or any of other the nasties that are easily treated with a few days of antibiotics, then don't have sex

come on dr..... condoms can prevent HIV

[BenDeCosta]

13 minutes ago, jack71 said:

come on dr..... condoms can prevent HIV

Until they break.

[scubascuba3]

1 hour ago, jack71 said:

come on dr..... condoms can prevent HIV

condoms are something like 90% effective, PrEP tablets 92% to 98% if men take daily. The reason condoms are less effective than people think is they take them off or just don't wear them

[2009]

People blow HIV and other STDs out of proportion.

 

Yes, they are serious, but why are people so concerned of catching Gonorrhoea but not strep throat, for example? I see no difference. Finger warts vs genital warts is another example. Oral herpes (the cold sore) vs genital herpes.

 

Actually, the drug company who made herpes antivirals went on an advertising campaign making people terrified so they could sell their drugs. Before that herpes was considered no big deal.

 

Ok, Syphilis is scary, but we have penicillin. And it is exceedingly rare in heterosexuals, as is HIV (to get on topic with this thread).

 

I take my data from Dr Handsfield and Dr Hook. They wrote the book on HIV. They headed their own institutes in USA and have almost 50 years experience each (they were young doctors when HIV started). There's nobody alive with more experience. Dr Handsfield even won a prestigious award for his work in HIV prevention. Feel free to check the data; I have no inclination to search for exact references just now.

 

The polygamous sexually active woman in an industrialized country has a HIV prevalence of 1 in 1000 on average. And that is the same for prostitutes who work in establishments (e.g. parlours, clubs) Surprisingly, there is no difference documented.

 

The prostitutes who have a HUGELY greater HIV prevalence are the ones working, and sometimes living, on the streets. This has been documented very well. They simply have greater socio-economic problems to worry about than condoms. They are often drug dependent and basically very disfunctional people.

 

They are in a different category from fully-functional sex workers who have their lives "together" and work from establishments as - far as HIV prevalence is concerned. These sex workers do have similar HIV rates as your average nightclub trollup who does it for free (or single sexual active women indulging in multiple partners, to be polite).

 

You may think Thailand is a higher risk than America. Yet in 2019, Thailand had 5400 new infections, while America had 34,800 new infections. 

 

Yes, I know: population difference. Even, if you adjust the population figures, America still had more that year. Thailand's cases in 2019 were not too far off the UK's (and population size is similar too). Note: I dunno why this paragraph is in bold; can't seem to get it off. Lol.

 

Thailand's infection rate has steadily been dropping since it's peak of 115,000 cases a year in 1992 (except in Thailand's economic crisis where it spiked a bit that year).

 

Now, what are the odds you will get HIV from a single episode of unprotected vaginal sex with an infected woman? Notice: I said "infected woman" - so that means she has the virus (definitely, without question).

 

The female-to-male transmission rate is 1 in 1000 (1 in 2000 if you are circumcised).

 

So, if we assume that the odds of a woman in Thailand having HIV is 1 in a 1000 (adjust this if you like if you think she is less or more promiscuous) and the chances if getting it from a single episode of vaginal sex with an infected woman are 1 in 1000 as well.

 

Then, the overall risk is 1 in 1,000,000 per random encounter (you just multiply the two factors together), assuming she is a functional person and doesn't sell her body on the streets (as we mentioned before).

 

Let's put that into perspective: the odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are about 1 in 15,000. And the odds of dying in a traffic accident (not in Thailand, na!) are around 1 in 100 in your lifetime. I don't know what the odds are in Thailand, but I think it is safe to suggest it is worse.

 

So, clearly, having a single episode of unprotected vaginal sex is not that much of a great risk compared to other risks, like going outside in a storm or hopping in a vehicle.

 

HIV rarely transmits from a single episode of heterosexual sex. There have been documented cases but most HIV specialists have never personally had a patient like that.

 

Heterosexuals who get HIV usually have taken risk after risk after risk. They have exposed themselves to the virus many times until it eventually gets in them.

 

Men who have sex with men are different of course due to the much higher prevalence rate, and according to Dr Handsfield, even if you do it (unprotected) even just a few times you should expect to be infected.

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by 2009

[RJRS1301]

14 minutes ago, 2009 said:

People blow HIV and other STDs out of proportion.

 

Yes, they are serious, but why are people so concerned of catching Gonorrhoea but not strep throat, for example. I see no difference. Finger warts vs genital warts. Oral herpes (the cold sore) vs genital herpes.

 

Actually, the drug company who made herpes antivirals went on an advertising campaign making people terrified so they could sell their drugs. Before that herpes was considered no big deal.

 

Ok, Syphilis is scary, but we have penicillin. And it is exceedingly rare in heterosexuals, as is HIV (to get on topic with this thread).

 

I will take this data from Dr Handsfield and Dr Hook. There's nobody alive with more experience. They wrote the book on HIV. They headed their own institutes in USA and have almost 50 years experience each (they were young doctors when HIV started).

 

The average sexually woman in an industrialized country has a HIV prevalence of 1 in 1000 on average. And that is the same for prostitutes who work in establishments (e.g. parlours, clubs) Surprisingly, there is no difference documented.

 

The prostitutes who have a HUGELY greater HIV prevalence are the ones working, and sometimes living, on the streets. This has been documented very well. They simply have greater socio-economic problems to worry about than condoms. They are often drug dependent and basically very disfunctional people.

 

They are in a different category from fully-functional sex workers who have their lives "together" and work from establishments as - far as HIV prevalence is concerned. These sex workers do have similar HIV rates as your average nightclub trollup who does it for free (or single sexual active women indulging in multiple partners, to be polite).

 

You may think Thailand is a higher risk than America. Yet in 2019, Thailand had 5400 new infections, while America had around 35,000 new infections. 

 

Yes, I know population difference. Even, if you adjust the population figures, America still had more that year. Thailand's cases in 2019 were not too far off the UK's (and population size is similar too).

 

Thailand's infection rate has steadily been dropping since it's peak of 115,000 cases a year in 1992 (except in Thailand's economic crisis where it spiked a bit that year).

 

Now, what are the odds you will get HIV from a single episode of unprotected vaginal sex with an infected woman? Notice, I said "infected woman" - so that means she has the virus (definitely, without question).

 

The female-to-male transmission rate is 1 in 1000 (1 in 2000 if you are circumcised).

 

So, if we assume that the odds of a woman in Thailand having HIV is 1 in a 1000 (adjust this if you like if you think she is less or more promiscuous) and the chances if getting it from a single episode of vaginal sex with an infected woman are 1 in 1000 as well. Then, the overall risk is 1 in 1,000,000 per random encounter (you just multiply the two factors together), assuming she is a functional person and doesn't sell her body on the streets (as we mentioned before).

 

Let's put that into perspective: the odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are about 1 in 15,000. And the odds of dying in a traffic accident (not in Thailand, na!) are around 1 in 100 in your lifetime. I don't know what the odds are in Thailand, but I think it is safe to suggest it is worse.

 

So, clearly, having a single episode of unprotected vaginal sex is not that much of a great risk compared to other risks, like going outside in a storm or hopping in a vehicle.

 

HIV rarely transmits from a single episode of heterosexual sex. There have been documented cases but most HIV specialists have never personally had a patient like that.

 

Heterosexuals who get HIV usually have taken risk after risk after risk. They have exposed themselves to the virus many times until it eventually gets in them.

 

Men who have sex with men are very different of course, and according to Dr Handsfield, even if you do it (unprotected) even just a few times you should expect to be infected.

 

 

 

Your last paragraph I doubt is based on current scientific research and studies and does not take into account PrEP

There are also some very judgemental projections in your post.

 

 

[scubascuba3]

36 minutes ago, 2009 said:

People blow HIV and other STDs out of proportion.

 

Yes, they are serious, but why are people so concerned of catching Gonorrhoea but not strep throat, for example? I see no difference. Finger warts vs genital warts is another example. Oral herpes (the cold sore) vs genital herpes.

 

I agree with you there, it's a stigma with sex, sex is bad..

 

You mention HIV US vs Thailand, don't forget here girls just don't get tested, they are carrying all sorts, so the numbers in Thailand are likely to be a lot higher.

 

I agree that HIV is a lot harder to catch than people think, if that wasn't the case there would be far more falang getting infected, girls as they don't get tested are unaware, talk to any about STIs and HIV and they are clueless

[2009]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

Your last paragraph I doubt is based on current scientific research and studies and does not take into account PrEP

There are also some very judgemental projections in your post.

 

 

You're right, I was not taking into account anyone on PrEP.

 

I am still under the impression though that the MSM scene is of greater risk statistically; over 60% of infections are in that group. I could be wrong, I guess. I could probably find a recent quote from an expert on that, but I don't really have the time.

 

I certainly made some tongue n cheek judgements about promiscuous females in nightclubs, but certainly not towards men who have sex with men in the last paragraph - I was trying to present facts there.

Edited August 27, 2021 by 2009

[2009]

On 3/18/2021 at 7:56 PM, Lacessit said:

I have yet to meet a woman who did not prefer condoms.

I have no problem with them, it's protection for me as well as them. The application of a condom by a woman skilled in the art adds to the pleasure.

Yeah, from my extensive experience, the ladies-of-ill-repute in Thailand carry condoms and like to use them consistently.

 

The same, however, cannot be said (in my experience) for promiscuous non-sex workers (both in Asia and in the West). The phrase, "What's a condom?" comes to mind. Don't think it ever crossed their mind.

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, 2009 said:

People blow HIV and other STDs out of proportion.

 

Yes, they are serious, but why are people so concerned of catching Gonorrhoea but not strep throat, for example? I see no difference. Finger warts vs genital warts is another example. Oral herpes (the cold sore) vs genital herpes.

 

Actually, the drug company who made herpes antivirals went on an advertising campaign making people terrified so they could sell their drugs. Before that herpes was considered no big deal.

 

Ok, Syphilis is scary, but we have penicillin. And it is exceedingly rare in heterosexuals, as is HIV (to get on topic with this thread).

 

I take my data from Dr Handsfield and Dr Hook. They wrote the book on HIV. They headed their own institutes in USA and have almost 50 years experience each (they were young doctors when HIV started). There's nobody alive with more experience. Dr Handsfield even won a prestigious award for his work in HIV prevention. Feel free to check the data; I have no inclination to search for exact references just now.

 

The polygamous sexually active woman in an industrialized country has a HIV prevalence of 1 in 1000 on average. And that is the same for prostitutes who work in establishments (e.g. parlours, clubs) Surprisingly, there is no difference documented.

 

The prostitutes who have a HUGELY greater HIV prevalence are the ones working, and sometimes living, on the streets. This has been documented very well. They simply have greater socio-economic problems to worry about than condoms. They are often drug dependent and basically very disfunctional people.

 

They are in a different category from fully-functional sex workers who have their lives "together" and work from establishments as - far as HIV prevalence is concerned. These sex workers do have similar HIV rates as your average nightclub trollup who does it for free (or single sexual active women indulging in multiple partners, to be polite).

 

You may think Thailand is a higher risk than America. Yet in 2019, Thailand had 5400 new infections, while America had 34,800 new infections. 

 

Yes, I know: population difference. Even, if you adjust the population figures, America still had more that year. Thailand's cases in 2019 were not too far off the UK's (and population size is similar too). Note: I dunno why this paragraph is in bold; can't seem to get it off. Lol.

 

Thailand's infection rate has steadily been dropping since it's peak of 115,000 cases a year in 1992 (except in Thailand's economic crisis where it spiked a bit that year).

 

Now, what are the odds you will get HIV from a single episode of unprotected vaginal sex with an infected woman? Notice: I said "infected woman" - so that means she has the virus (definitely, without question).

 

The female-to-male transmission rate is 1 in 1000 (1 in 2000 if you are circumcised).

 

So, if we assume that the odds of a woman in Thailand having HIV is 1 in a 1000 (adjust this if you like if you think she is less or more promiscuous) and the chances if getting it from a single episode of vaginal sex with an infected woman are 1 in 1000 as well.

 

Then, the overall risk is 1 in 1,000,000 per random encounter (you just multiply the two factors together), assuming she is a functional person and doesn't sell her body on the streets (as we mentioned before).

 

Let's put that into perspective: the odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are about 1 in 15,000. And the odds of dying in a traffic accident (not in Thailand, na!) are around 1 in 100 in your lifetime. I don't know what the odds are in Thailand, but I think it is safe to suggest it is worse.

 

So, clearly, having a single episode of unprotected vaginal sex is not that much of a great risk compared to other risks, like going outside in a storm or hopping in a vehicle.

 

HIV rarely transmits from a single episode of heterosexual sex. There have been documented cases but most HIV specialists have never personally had a patient like that.

 

Heterosexuals who get HIV usually have taken risk after risk after risk. They have exposed themselves to the virus many times until it eventually gets in them.

 

Men who have sex with men are different of course due to the much higher prevalence rate, and according to Dr Handsfield, even if you do it (unprotected) even just a few times you should expect to be infected.

 

 

 

I am not convinced about the statics quoted. 

The 1 in 1,000,000 is to optimistic. 

The rate in serodiscordant US couples is 1 in 10,000.

A study In Kenya put the overall rate as 1 in 159.

And at one time for Thailand sex workers it was 1 in 33

[2009]

20 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I am not convinced about the statics quoted. 

The 1 in 1,000,000 is to optimistic. 

The rate in serodiscordant US couples is 1 in 10,000.

A study In Kenya put the overall rate as 1 in 159.

And at one time for Thailand sex workers it was 1 in 33

Serodiscordant means one of the partners literally has HIV and if they are a couple then they are having regular sex (over months, probably years). And you said the infection rate was 1 in 10,000.

 

Whereas, I am talking about the odds associated with randomly picking a partner (the odds are in your favour she doesn't have it) and then becoming infected through a single episode of sex.

 

The only studies I have read about the HIV prevalence of prostitutes in Thailand were conducted on street hookers -- not massage therapists, bar waitresses, or dancers.

 

I mentioned in my post that this has been well-studied in America and the difference in HIV prevalence is enormous.

Edited August 27, 2021 by 2009

[RJRS1301]

5 minutes ago, 2009 said:

Serodiscordant means one of the partners literally has HIV and if they are a couple then they are having regular sex (over months, probably years). And you said the infection rate was 1 in 10,000.

The Swiss study shows that for the partner with HIV on medication and with an undectable (less than 50copies per mmol) viral load and good CD4 count, the risks are minimal.

Although it is called the Swiss Study, it was conducted worldwide including Thailand and other SE Asian countries, those who contracted HIV during study (very few) were shown to have had unprotected intercourse with someone other than their regular partner.

In countries where good therapeutic levels of antiretrovirals cannot be maintained, makes it much riskier to transmit. 

 

[cleopatra2]

21 minutes ago, 2009 said:

Serodiscordant means one of the partners literally has HIV and if they are a couple then they are having regular sex (over months, probably years). And you said the infection rate was 1 in 10,000.

 

Whereas, I am talking about the odds associated with randomly picking a partner (the odds are in your favour she doesn't have it) and then becoming infected through a single episode of sex.

 

The only studies I have read about the HIV prevalence of prostitutes in Thailand were conducted on street hookers -- not massage therapists, bar waitresses, or dancers.

 

I mentioned in my post that this has been well-studied in America and the difference in HIV prevalence is enormous.

The current estimate for female to male transmission is 0.04%. This equates to 1 in 2000 to 1 in 3000.

 

Of course the statistics do not tell at what point somebody is going to be infected. It could be their first or 1000th sexual act

[Boomer6969]

On 3/18/2021 at 7:50 AM, Peterw42 said:

I think there is an aspect of "what happens in Thailand stays in Thailand"

Lots of guys are having sex with ladyboys and are in complete denial when asked their sexual orientation or history. In their mind they are straight and have never had sex with a "man".

The data is only ever going to be as accurate as the information shared.

 

 

 

Thanks, you nail it. Half the "market" at Nana (in the good old days) were  ladyboys, and letting one of these creatures ejaculate into your rectum gave you a very solid chance to to catch HIV,  probably 100 times higher than when you come in the vagina of one of the gogo younger girls. One the other hand, with the LB option, the Covid risk is low according to DPM Anustin.

 

And yes PREP rocks, but have condoms ready for when the girl requires one.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Boomer6969

[scubascuba3]

55 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The current estimate for female to male transmission is 0.04%. This equates to 1 in 2000 to 1 in 3000.

 

Of course the statistics do not tell at what point somebody is going to be infected. It could be their first or 1000th sexual act

the 0.04% is if you have sex with an HIV positive female?

[carlyai]

On 3/18/2021 at 11:43 AM, RJRS1301 said:

They are the ones having the condomless sex, while each of us are responsible for our health outcomes. Women have less power (especially in Asian countries) in the sexual dynamics.

Most men do (it appears)  prefer, and( anecdotally I am informed) pay extra to not use condoms.

The men are the ones seeking services from the "working women",  men rarely have sexual health checks unless they have symptoms of infection,  and are frequently asymptomatic carriers of other STIs (chlamydia being the most frequently untreated one). 

In another tread you posted on PrEP, a poster felt the health tests required for supply of the drug, sucked.

Part of the supply of PrEP (as you know,) is testing for STIs and other organ function tests. Good post by you for those requiring PrEP. 

Garbage.

[cleopatra2]

17 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

the 0.04% is if you have sex with an HIV positive female?

Yes

[2009]

48 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

the 0.04% is if you have sex with an HIV positive female?

That's what they are saying, yes.

 

I have seen figures of 1 in 1000 (and 1 in 2000 of circumcised males).

 

But apparently, there is data stating it is even less risky.

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, 2009 said:

That's what they are saying, yes.

 

I have seen figures of 1 in 1000 (and 1 in 2000 of circumcised males).

 

But apparently, there is data stating it is even less risky.

These are only statistics. They do not tell or indicate when or if infection. Will occur. 

Thailand 2017, 30% of new female hiv diagnosis occurred in the low risk group. 

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

the 0.04% is if you have sex with an HIV positive female?

Well if both parties are HIV negative, then there can be no transmission 

[scubascuba3]

2 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Yes

So the % of catching HIV is far lower than 0.04% as the majority of the time the women won't be HIV+

[scubascuba3]

1 hour ago, 2009 said:

That's what they are saying, yes.

 

I have seen figures of 1 in 1000 (and 1 in 2000 of circumcised males).

 

But apparently, there is data stating it is even less risky.

Yes that seems to be widely accepted being circumcised halves the risk

Edited August 27, 2021 by scubascuba3

[2009]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

Well if both parties are HIV negative, then there can be no transmission 

I think you may have missed the point.

 

What the person is saying is that if your female partner does indeed have HIV, this percentage is the chance that you will get infected from a single episode of vaginal sex with her.

[2009]

16 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

So the % of catching HIV is far lower than 0.04% as the majority of the time the women won't be HIV+

That's what I was saying in my really lengthy post above.

 

You multiply the transmission odds with the prevalence odds.

 

I came up with 1 in a million. Well, actually an expert called Dr Handsfield did. I am quoting him.

 

He uses standard figures for CSWs in industrialized countries and I have read him use these figures for Thailand too, actually.

 

However, there may be some vary from country to country, of course, I would imagine.

 

I would think 1 in 100,000 would even be a fair conservative estimate for Thailand. Bearing in mind, we are talking about a single episode of sex with a CSW of unknown status.

Edited August 27, 2021 by 2009

[scubascuba3]

2 hours ago, carlyai said:

Garbage.

Which part was garbage, sounded mostly on the ball to me

[scubascuba3]

1 minute ago, 2009 said:

That's what I was saying in my really lengthy post above.

 

You multiply the transmission odds with the prevalence odds.

 

I came up with 1 in a million. Well, actually an expert called Dr Handsfield did. I am quoting him.

Yes, makes sense to me

[2009]

On 3/18/2021 at 7:43 AM, RJRS1301 said:

They are the ones having the condomless sex, while each of us are responsible for our health outcomes. Women have less power (especially in Asian countries) in the sexual dynamics.

Most men do (it appears)  prefer, and( anecdotally I am informed) pay extra to not use condoms.

The men are the ones seeking services from the "working women",  men rarely have sexual health checks unless they have symptoms of infection,  and are frequently asymptomatic carriers of other STIs (chlamydia being the most frequently untreated one). 

In another tread you posted on PrEP, a poster felt the health tests required for supply of the drug, sucked.

Part of the supply of PrEP (as you know,) is testing for STIs and other organ function tests. Good post by you for those requiring PrEP. 

I don't know if I agree with much of this.

 

I am sure there are many men who will go to be tested often unprotected encounters even without symptoms just due to anxiety.

 

People get way over-anxious about STDs and will run off for a test convinced they have something even though the odds are drastically in their favor to not have anything.

 

Imagine if we rushed off for colonoscopy every time we had diarrhea?

 

With things like Chlamydia abd Gonorrhoea men are rarely asymptomatic - less than 10% only - due to our urethras being narrow and there for symptoms being very noticeable/severe. Women, on the other hand, often don't notice (it's 50/50, actually) due to their vaginas being comparitively huge.

 

And on that note Gonorrhoea of the throat goes unnoticed 90% of the time. In case you are wondering, Chlamydia almost never infects the throat - it isn't a very hospitable place for that. Whereas Gonorrhoea is related to strep bacteria and therefor is at home in the throat.

 

Regarding men having power over women with condoms. It may be true in some cases, but it is really the money that has the power. Though, I'd say it is more her greed/desire for money and her decision more so than any power he has. 

 

 

[cleopatra2]

On 8/27/2021 at 4:36 PM, scubascuba3 said:

So the % of catching HIV is far lower than 0.04% as the majority of the time the women won't be HIV+

The 0.04% is only an average and not a definite .

The odds also depend upon other biological factors , and under some circumstances can be as high as 2%.

you cannot simply multiply the risk against the prevalence, this is just bad statistics.

Since the hiv status of the partner is uknown then the risk is either 0% if negative or 0.4% if positive.

 

If a man as sexual intercourse with an hiv positive woman , the risk is 0.4%. If he then goes on to sleep with 9 hiv negative woman , the risk has not been reduced to 0.04%. It is still 0.4% from the first encounter.

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, 2009 said:

I don't know if I agree with much of this.

 

I am sure there are many men who will go to be tested often unprotected encounters even without symptoms just due to anxiety.

 

People get way over-anxious about STDs and will run off for a test convinced they have something even though the odds are drastically in their favor to not have anything.

 

Imagine if we rushed off for colonoscopy every time we had diarrhea?

 

With things like Chlamydia abd Gonorrhoea men are rarely asymptomatic - less than 10% only - due to our urethras being narrow and there for symptoms being very noticeable/severe. Women, on the other hand, often don't notice (it's 50/50, actually) due to their vaginas being comparitively huge.

 

And on that note Gonorrhoea of the throat goes unnoticed 90% of the time. In case you are wondering, Chlamydia almost never infects the throat - it isn't a very hospitable place for that. Whereas Gonorrhoea is related to strep bacteria and therefor is at home in the throat.

 

Regarding men having power over women with condoms. It may be true in some cases, but it is really the money that has the power. Though, I'd say it is more her greed/desire for money and her decision more so than any power he has. 

 

 

Pardon me if disagree with on so many levels. This post is so incorrect on many levels including a level of misogyny. However I respect your right to hold differing views

 

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by RJRS1301

[cleopatra2]

On 8/27/2021 at 4:39 PM, 2009 said:

That's what I was saying in my really lengthy post above.

 

You multiply the transmission odds with the prevalence odds.

 

I came up with 1 in a million. Well, actually an expert called Dr Handsfield did. I am quoting him.

 

He uses standard figures for CSWs in industrialized countries and I have read him use these figures for Thailand too, actually.

 

However, there may be some vary from country to country, of course, I would imagine.

 

I would think 1 in 100,000 would even be a fair conservative estimate for Thailand. Bearing in mind, we are talking about a single episode of sex with a CSW of unknown status.

multiplying transmission odds against prevalence is worthless.

They are totally different statistic cohorts.

 

Transmission odds are actual exposure risk per encounter 

Prevalence odds are per sexual partner , not taking into account the number of sexual acts or the hiv status.

[2009]

35 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Pardon me if disagree with on so many levels. This post is so incorrect on many levels including a level of misogyny. However I respect your right to hold differing views

 

 

That's ok. We all have our opinions.

 

Though, some things are fact. The STDs mentioned go unnoticed in women 50% of the time, unlike men who notice the symptoms 90% of the time - just due to anatomy, that's all.

 

People often do go for STD testing due to anxiety (or other emotional reasons, rather than physical symptoms) and most of the time all tests are clear. It is quite a phenomenon really. Most people don't that with other potential diseases. We are sort of hypochondriacs with sexual health, yet negligent with health in general. Truly a phenomenon.

 

Like I said, people don't usually rush off for a colonoscopy every time they have diarrhea, but after a regrettable sexual encounter (without symptoms) they need tests to reassure themselves they are okay. It is pretty common.

 

No misogyny so far and what was wrong on so many levels?

 

Greed, I think, is universal. It is a condition of men and women. I don't mean to make it sound like only women are greedy, but this discussion is about female professionals.

 

I think you took it the wrong way, or you just wanted to call me a nasty name.

 

I really don't think men have control over these women especially considering they earn as much as (if not more than) the average native English speaking teacher. I mean who has control over the price? If you examine the price, it is clearly them who have control over it.

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by 2009