Confusing First Thailand Trip

[ROMANOBA]

Freebies do not exist in Thailand, period.Sometimes a girl place a ' bet' in the form of a freebie, hoping to catch someone longterm.But its still an investment, not a freebie.

To OP:

I assume she is a bargirl.

Freebies do happen.

Sometimes the barladies want to feel free and affirm their freedom by spending the night with someone they like and be able to relax and forget a little about their work and not feel like a prostitute.

If you are nice to them, handsome enough (average western looks will mostly do), if they enjoyed the time spent together and enjoyed the sex and if the chemistry was good, AND IF SHE GOT ENOUGH MONEY FOR THE MONTH ALREADY (maybe because she is sponsored), chances are she will be a freebie.

I would say it happens about 1 time out of ten, frequency obviously varies from one guy to another.

A hidden agenda is possible if she presses you about your home mobile phone and your email address...

Prepare for tales of sick grandmothers and dead buffaloes.

[Sparky7]

If she has a game plan, it's working. You seam smitten. I might be wrong. Just how it looks to me.

Goodluck to you. Hope this is just one of your many experiances in Thailand. :jap:

Cheers dean999 I hope so to!

[manarak]

Freebies do not exist in Thailand, period.Sometimes a girl place a ' bet' in the form of a freebie, hoping to catch someone longterm.But its still an investment, not a freebie.

Wrong.

Many of my freebies are guaranteed really free, because they are already engaged with other(s) who do pay!

Well, you could say the bill is paid by someone else.

[manarak]

Only the viruses are really dangerous.

HIV, HEP C being the most dangerous, a condom protects against both.

Against HEP A and HEP B vaccines exist.

If a condom breaks, there is a risk of 1 in 2500 to catch HIV from an INFECTED woman. If we assume about 5% of thai sexworkers are infected (high estimate, normal population would be about 0.5 to 1%), that puts the risk at 1/50000 per random unprotected contact.

There are nasty bacteria as well, but the risk of lasting health damage is not very high if detected early enough and can be cured with antibiotics. Sometimes requiring a long and inconvenient treatment.

400 girls in 2 years...

Not unrealistic. I will fall short of that number because I tend to repeat certain girls, especially the giks, since this option is by for more economical :-)

You quote the risk at 1/50,000 if a condom breaks. that assumes you wear a condom, it breaks, and u have minimal fluid contact.

If you don't wear a condom at all your exposure time is increased, so the risk is increased.

I know a few guys who don't use condoms. They all say they never get anything from it and quote high numbers of BGs they have barfined....that is until they get really pissed and admit to some STD or other... if the bloke gets HIV yuo think he will be advertising that fact, to anyone???

No, the risk of 1/50000 is for a full session without condom and without other risk-increasing factors like cuts in the skin or other STDs being present.

You can check that on wikipedia.

And about your friends who don't wear condoms... well, they are just being plain stupid!

[outofoz]

Only the viruses are really dangerous.

HIV, HEP C being the most dangerous, a condom protects against both.

Against HEP A and HEP B vaccines exist.

If a condom breaks, there is a risk of 1 in 2500 to catch HIV from an INFECTED woman. If we assume about 5% of thai sexworkers are infected (high estimate, normal population would be about 0.5 to 1%), that puts the risk at 1/50000 per random unprotected contact.

There are nasty bacteria as well, but the risk of lasting health damage is not very high if detected early enough and can be cured with antibiotics. Sometimes requiring a long and inconvenient treatment.

400 girls in 2 years...

Not unrealistic. I will fall short of that number because I tend to repeat certain girls, especially the giks, since this option is by for more economical :-)

You quote the risk at 1/50,000 if a condom breaks. that assumes you wear a condom, it breaks, and u have minimal fluid contact.

If you don't wear a condom at all your exposure time is increased, so the risk is increased.

I know a few guys who don't use condoms. They all say they never get anything from it and quote high numbers of BGs they have barfined....that is until they get really pissed and admit to some STD or other... if the bloke gets HIV yuo think he will be advertising that fact, to anyone???

No, the risk of 1/50000 is for a full session without condom and without other risk-increasing factors like cuts in the skin or other STDs being present.

You can check that on wikipedia.

And about your friends who don't wear condoms... well, they are just being plain stupid!

Okay. Your initial post reads quotes the figures as being if a condom breaks, hence my reply.

the 1/50,000 chance of getting HIV without using a condom , when having sex with an infected partner seems low. (?) to me anyway.

Where did you get your figures from?

[ludditeman]

The guy originally credited with naming HIV/AIDs was quoted as saying it would take 10 years of a man having regular normal sex with an infected woman to stand a significant chance of catching the disease.

That was before the governments managed to shut him up.

As they didn't want it to be seen as a gay or drug addict disease.

I don't know if it is true or not, I'm just repeating what the guy said in the 1990s.

I do remember the UK Tv ads claiming 50% of the population would be infected by the year 2005, like that happened!

Those claiming people having unprotected sex are stupid.

How do you know?

Maybe you are stupid for believing the scare stories?

My mates and I have done a LOT of unprotected sex (with girls), we have a regular test (every year), none of us has caught anything (which I find quite surprising as there are about 10 of us comparing notes over the past 5 years).

Edited October 30, 2011 by ludditeman

[manarak]

Okay. Your initial post reads quotes the figures as being if a condom breaks, hence my reply.

the 1/50,000 chance of getting HIV without using a condom , when having sex with an infected partner seems low. (?) to me anyway.

Where did you get your figures from?

Wikipedia, as stated. They have a neat table listing the different risks of transmission for each event.

They quote the risk of catching HIV from an infected woman with vaginal sex at 4/10000 (= 1/2500).

Then it is a matter of estimating the probability that your sex partner is infected. I assumed 5% as the girls are in a high risk group (average HIV infection for Thailand is between 1 and 2%).

0.05 = 1/20

1/2500 * 1/20 = 1/50000.

The guy originally credited with naming HIV/AIDs was quoted as saying it would take 10 years of a man having regular normal sex with an infected woman to stand a significant chance of catching the disease.

That was before the governments managed to shut him up.

As they didn't want it to be seen as a gay or drug addict disease.

I don't know if it is true or not, I'm just repeating what the guy said in the 1990s.

Well, this is more or less true.

HIV is mostly caught and spread by people who:

- share needles

- have anal intercourse

Those claiming people having unprotected sex are stupid.

How do you know?

Maybe you are stupid for believing the scare stories?

My mates and I have done a LOT of unprotected sex (with girls), we have a regular test (every year), none of us has caught anything (which I find quite surprising as there are about 10 of us comparing notes over the past 5 years).

Well, they are stupid because they trust their life to luck, when a little rubber could reduce the risk to nearly zero.

I can tell you odds of 1/50000 are much higher than winning the lottery, yet people still play.

The empirical anecdote of 2 or 3 guys staying clean for 5 years means nothing statistically.

And to return to the example above, using the same infection rate of 5%, 400 shags would mean that your friends have the following probability of staying clean:

(1-1/50000)^400

= 99.2%

If they had barebacked 400 ladyboys, assuming 15% infection rate and 11/10000 risk, that figure would be 84.8%

If they like to be topped bareback by ladyboys (0.5% per act), this figure would be 47.2%

...

The risk goes up fast.

Edited October 30, 2011 by manarak

[outofoz]

Okay. Your initial post reads quotes the figures as being if a condom breaks, hence my reply.

the 1/50,000 chance of getting HIV without using a condom , when having sex with an infected partner seems low. (?) to me anyway.

Where did you get your figures from?

Wikipedia, as stated. They have a neat table listing the different risks of transmission for each event.

They quote the risk of catching HIV from an infected woman with vaginal sex at 4/10000 (= 1/2500).

Then it is a matter of estimating the probability that your sex partner is infected. I assumed 5% as the girls are in a high risk group (average HIV infection for Thailand is between 1 and 2%).

0.05 = 1/20

1/2500 * 1/20 = 1/50000.

The guy originally credited with naming HIV/AIDs was quoted as saying it would take 10 years of a man having regular normal sex with an infected woman to stand a significant chance of catching the disease.

That was before the governments managed to shut him up.

As they didn't want it to be seen as a gay or drug addict disease.

I don't know if it is true or not, I'm just repeating what the guy said in the 1990s.

Well, this is more or less true.

HIV is mostly caught and spread by people who:

- share needles

- have anal intercourse

Those claiming people having unprotected sex are stupid.

How do you know?

Maybe you are stupid for believing the scare stories?

My mates and I have done a LOT of unprotected sex (with girls), we have a regular test (every year), none of us has caught anything (which I find quite surprising as there are about 10 of us comparing notes over the past 5 years).

Well, they are stupid because they trust their life to luck, when a little rubber could reduce the risk to nearly zero.

I can tell you odds of 1/50000 are much higher than winning the lottery, yet people still play.

The empirical anecdote of 2 or 3 guys staying clean for 5 years means nothing statistically.

And to return to the example above, using the same infection rate of 5%, 400 shags would mean that your friends have the following probability of staying clean:

(1-1/50000)^400

= 99.2%

If they had barebacked 400 ladyboys, assuming 15% infection rate and 11/10000 risk, that figure would be 84.8%

If they like to be topped bareback by ladyboys (0.5% per act), this figure would be 47.2%

...

The risk goes up fast.

I would have to agree with Manarak, it is a game of chance when not using a condom. And really you have to question is it worth it? Might be better sex, but for the sake of 2 years bareback, you could get something nasty maybe for life. With BGs you are having sex with someone who might well have bedded many hundreds or even thousands of guys. i wouldn't want to be going unsheathed where some of these ex jailbird/ex druggie types have been before!

The guys I know who admit to not using condoms are generally risk takers in most facets of life, doing things without regard to the consequences. Classic cases for the Darwin Awards.

[ludditeman]

Classic cases for the Darwin Awards.

I have already reproduced many times, which I believe makes me ineligible for the Darwin Award.

At my age it doesn't really matter anyway, only in your 20s do you have that many concerns.

[dean999]

Some people can't catch HIV and there is a cure.

HIV immune

Cure

Before anyone says it, yes it would be expensive and you could die from the procedure. I know, there is always a catch.

[Mossfinn]

Some people can't catch HIV and there is a cure.

HIV immune

Cure

Before anyone says it, yes it would be expensive and you could die from the procedure. I know, there is always a catch.

and there is a cure.

I think you need to read the article again.

[F4UCorsair]

I realize that this is a little off topic, but it's the way the discussion has been going for a few posts.

I chatted to a doctor about HIV transmission some years ago. His advice was that since HIV a blood borne virus, there must be blood present, via abrasion, injury, or needle use, etc. This is why anal sex is such a risk, because minor trauma ALWAYS occurs, and when semen contacts blood, there is a conduit for the virus. The risks of a man contracting HIV from an infected woman through 'conventional' sex is so close to zero as to be inestimable. If he really goes for it though, and abrasion of his penis occurs, then the odds change....dramatically.

There is also the factor of volume of blood/virus. There is already what many thought a very high risk in countries such as African countries where the incidence of HIV is very high....mosquito bites. With mosquitoes sticking their nose into infected people, they have minor traces of blood on them. They then bite/sting an uninfected person and one would think that there would be a risk of transmission, but apparently it would take thousands of bites by mosquitoes that had already bitten infected people before there would be a risk, and even then, a minor one. Proof of this is that using an infected needle does not automatically result in transmission of the virus, but repeated use increases the risks enormously. Injecting infected blood gives 100% chance of infection.

Edited November 7, 2011 by F4UCorsair