When Does Safe Sex Apply And What Does It Mean?

[gatorhead333]

well now i heard it all on TV and in topic description I post a line from "finding love in chiang mai" thread.. lets see if people can tell us what is wrong or right with the above thinking by a recent TV poster.

what was posted then defended was :" But, safe sex isn't very safe if one or more of the spouses are playing around"

this brings up ..what is safe sex and when & why does it need to be implemented in a loving and/or non loving relationship??

i know this is not a fun topic but it would seem that some on TV do not understand...

Edited May 19, 2009 by gatorhead333

[Ulysses G.]

I think that what was meant is that if a married couple are not using protection with each other, but one of them is fooling around on the side, it is easy to make a "mistake" - even trying to use safe sex - and possibly bring something home to an innocent party. What if a condom breaks or it is a problem (i.e. herpes) that can be passed on despite any protection?

[gatorhead333]

no tha is not what was said,

safe sex isn't very safe if one or more of the spouses are playing around"

this is why people practice safe sex, unsafe sex if not using condoms and playing the field....

now do not suppose this and that this is rediculous and has nothing t d with what safe sex is...

safe sex is safe sex.... it is safe as all heck if one of the spouses is playing around compared to not using safe sex....

this was a post declaring that when the mouse is away it is o.k. for the lady to play...

whoo nelly.... WHAT?? herpies this is when condom is 100% needed ...

Edited May 19, 2009 by gatorhead333

[Ulysses G.]

An off topic suggestion for gatorhead333. We love your threads in the Chiang Mai forum, but if you do not make your topics specific to Chiang Mai, the mods will try to use your great posts to make the less fun forums more exciting.

Maybe, try calling your next thread something like, "Replying to When Does Safe Sex Apply IN CHIANG MAI And What Does It Mean"?, so that the mods won't put them in the boring sections with few readers.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[Sheryl]

UG, I believe the OP has specifically chosen to place this in the Health Forum.

"Safe sex"means either:

sex limited to a (mutually) monogamous relationship

or

consistent condom use

I think what the quote meant was that the first type of "safe sex" is safe only if one's assumption of one's partner's fidelity is correct. True enough.

[Ulysses G.]

I think what the quote meant was that the first type of "safe sex" is safe only if one's assumption of one's partner's fidelity is correct. True enough.

I agree with your translation and I agree with the thought.

[gatorhead333]

UG, I believe the OP has specifically chosen to place this in the Health Forum.

"Safe sex"means either:

sex limited to a (mutually) monogamous relationship

or

consistent condom use

I think what the quote meant was that the first type of "safe sex" is safe only if one's assumption of one's partner's fidelity is correct. True enough.

o.k. i see your point in CM seems so remote for 99% thai farang arrangements so what safe sex as far as partners fidelity goes in CM is kinda a joke with what we were discussing what the "love thread"' where it had gone to as far as let wife go out on side when gone blah blah blah so this mutually monogamous relationship idea/dream was not applicable at all relative to the blah blahs in the post..

.

if you think about the words "safe sex".... if you are bonking on the side the you use completey clinical safe sex with side bonk... hense safe sex..it is your duty if you <removed> a partner with nothing ie. no safe sex....

then with UG idea condome breaks,herpies.. well this is all the more reason. it is like saying : a cop thinks to himself ... well i am going out for big bust but why put on this bullet proof vest becasue it doesn't protect my head..... so he gets the big kiss goodby in the gut...

well i think we need another food thread.... best Thai seafood best cost in CM with best view???

Edited May 19, 2009 by gatorhead333

[BigSnake]

Only safe sex is no sex, NUFF said

[gatorhead333]

well that is not safe sex that is no sex or sex with your self sex ....

the next step which produces a little more fun than no sex or sex with yourself sex is sex with condom.... pretty dran safe 99% of the time.

[spacefruit]

No no no, you guys got it all wrong. Its all about passport control.

As long as you go through passport control, it'll be safe - she'll never catch you.

(A JOKE before i am censured again)

[AndyBlueEyes]

There seems to be some confusion about what 'safe sex' really is so perhaps this picture will help clear up the confusion.

[IanForbes]

Gatorhead still hasn't understood what I clearly wrote. He takes objection to the FACT that some couples have reached a personal agreement with each other where one or more of the spouses have extra-marital affairs when the other is away. I'm just acknowledging the FACT that it happens. Whether or not I agree with it does not mean that it doesn't happen. I don't try imposing my morals on anyone else and I would expect the same in return.

Using condoms is normally what is called practising safe sex. But, even using condoms isn't 100% safe if someone has a contagious disease. Unfortunately, we can't always tell if someone has a disease. That is why we catch the flu every year. And, not practising safe sex is the reason why AIDS is far more common in the gay male population than in the heterosexual male population, and FAR less so in the gay female population.

Using condoms also help prevent pregnancy. That could also be called safe sex. Only idiots take the risk of impregnating a woman if they don't WANT to have children.

There is no need for charts and files. We all know the risks, but life is a risk and without taking a few risks it's hard to feel alive.

[Sheryl]

Using condoms is normally what is called practising safe sex. But, even using condoms isn't 100% safe if someone has a contagious disease. Unfortunately, we can't always tell if someone has a disease. That is why we catch the flu every year. And, not practising safe sex is the reason why AIDS is far more common in the gay male population than in the heterosexual male population, and FAR less so in the gay female population.

Not 100% but pretty close to it, if used correctly and consistently.

In Thailand at least the heterosexual male population often fails to practice safe sex (and has a much higher incidence of HIV than their counterparts in the west as a result).

And, in the west at least, there has been a dramatic decrease in risky behavior on the part of gays in response to the HIV epidemic.

But need to understand that there are also physiological factors that put gay males at higher risk than most heterosexual males: anal sex carries a greater riks of transmission than does vaginal intercourse.

For same reason, while it may be true that gay women tend to be less promiscuous than men (I have the impression this is so in the west, at least) this is less a factor in their near nil levels of HIv infection than is simple physiology. The nature of female-female sex is simply not very conducive to transmission of the virus.

[purplehaze]

Using condoms is normally what is called practising safe sex. But, even using condoms isn't 100% safe if someone has a contagious disease. Unfortunately, we can't always tell if someone has a disease. That is why we catch the flu every year.

Does this mean that if I wear a condom I won't catch the flu?

[mommysboy]

Using condoms is normally what is called practising safe sex. But, even using condoms isn't 100% safe if someone has a contagious disease. Unfortunately, we can't always tell if someone has a disease. That is why we catch the flu every year.

Does this mean that if I wear a condom I won't catch the flu?

Even condoms do not protect fully against certain diseases, syphilis and herpes being most serious.

HIV/AIDS appears to be very difficult to acquire in the west via vaginal sex, however males are alleged to acquire it en masse in Thailand. The explanation is that males in Thailand tend to visit brothels more and use condoms less. As far as I can tell there may be some plausibility in this statement, and moreover, they are more likely to frequent cheap establishments where the females may have to engage in frequent unprotected sex, so that a male may come in to contact with another man's infected sperm, etc. Not nice! The situation is analogous to the bath houses in USA which led to the first major epidemic. But toi be sure, this is an extreme example.

IMHO opinion there are a lot of unanswered questions surrounding this ghastly syndrome, but not one sensible person would ever advocate anything less than safe sex, which for most parts is taken to be safe sex in a monogamous relationship where both partners have been screened, or protected sex with a long time known partner who is obviously in good health down below.

[gatorhead333]

Gatorhead still hasn't understood what I clearly wrote. #1-He takes objection to the FACT that some couples have reached a personal agreement with each other where one or more of the spouses have extra-marital affairs when the other is away. I'm just acknowledging the FACT that it happens. Whether or not I agree with it does not mean that it doesn't happen. I don't try imposing my morals on anyone else and I would expect the same in return.

Using condoms is normally what is called practising safe sex. But, #2-even using condoms isn't 100% safe if someone has a contagious disease. Unfortunately, we can't always tell if someone has a disease. That is why we catch the flu every year. And, not practising safe sex is the reason why AIDS is far more common in the gay male population than in the heterosexual male population, and FAR less so in the gay female population.

Using condoms also help prevent pregnancy. That could also be called safe sex. Only idiots take the risk of impregnating a woman if they don't WANT to have children.

There is no need for charts and files. We all know the risks, but#3-

life is a risk and without taking a few risks it's hard to feel alive.

no! no! no! #1ian statement-i never said I DO NOT CONDONE in anyway shape or fashion to this little rant .. and who cares!! what does this have to do with topic here or on the love thread ...NOTHING!!!! and again who cares about this what does it have to do with the time of day?? ...

#2-ian statement ... again WHAT ? EVEN USING CONDOMES ISN'T 100% SAFE IF SOMEONE HAS CONTAGIOUS(INFECTIOUS ) DISEASE???

WELL I COULD CRASH AND DIE IN AN AIRPLANE TOO.... BUT WHAT IS YOUR POINT?? don't use them with the bar girls here because they may break or something???so why bother..what the heck are you saying??????????or why should cops wear bulit proof vest since they may get balsted in the head.... along those lines of reasoning???by the way i have not had th flu in 20 years last flu here in CM 1989 bad one... maybe becuase i use condomes no flu to date? now i understand why no flu ..thanks!!

i think you show us your thinking on point#2 in your last blurb ..but who knows

#3 life is a risk and without taking a few risk it's hard to feel alive.

so i think your point if any is why use condomes (refer to#2) because (refer to#3)

ian dude, scary thinking,no logic leads to risky behavior... kinda refering to your gay male population statement above ie. not practicing safe sex for #2 and #3 line of thinking.... whooe nellie....

your line of thinking may well be a CM recipe for disaster in finding your love!!

Edited May 21, 2009 by gatorhead333

[gatorhead333]

Using condoms is normally what is called practising safe sex. But, even using condoms isn't 100% safe if someone has a contagious disease. Unfortunately, we can't always tell if someone has a disease. That is why we catch the flu every year.

Does this mean that if I wear a condom I won't catch the flu?

yeh,thats the ticket!!!

i think that was what was being said but as long as it doesn't break!!!

[BlackJack]

pretty soon now an OZ company is releasing a gel that effectively blocks HIV, Herpes, HPV and several other bacteria.

The Durex company has signed agreements to use it as a lube on their condoms and a play gel is being released as well.

The benefits are great in particular for the 3rd world countries that will probably be given this gel free through Gates Foundation and other charity works.

It will save millions of lives and billions in healthcare.

Theres the good side and I suppose the church and other groups will not be pleased.

please note it is not the Durex company (so dont buy there SSL stocks) - the gel is licensed to them and a royalty will be charged.