Guest lwh101 Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 "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? Quote
paborn Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 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. newscene 1 Quote
Guest henke111 Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 What is Pep? Similar to PreP? Ive been told to take it within 12 hours after unprotected sex Quote
Shonen Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 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. paborn 1 Quote
vinapu Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 ... I won over 3 thousand from the greedy casinos, betting America football and roulette. now you are well financed to travel to Thailand and have fun , call it your tip fund financed by like you say ' greedy casinos" Quote
ct2005 Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 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? halfhansum 1 Quote
paborn Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 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. halfhansum 1 Quote
halfhansum Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 `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 .. ChristianPFC 1 Quote
paborn Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 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 1 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% Quote
halfhansum Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 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 .. Quote
paborn Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 OK, I know your wrong But I leave it to someone with better math skills to explain. It's just one of those cases that I know damn well you're wrong but can't explain it. Quote
Popular Post CurtisD Posted October 5, 2018 Popular Post Posted October 5, 2018 Ok, probability is tricky and as lwh101 pointed out I got it a bit wrong in my last post (mixing up probability of contracting HIV with probability of exposure to it), so here goes with what I hope is both a clear and an accurate explanation. The probability of a single event and the probability of multiple events are different things. Use the toss of a coin as an example. The odds of heads or tails are 50% on each toss. The odds of heads on any single occasion, the first toss of the coin or the 20th toss, is always 50%. However, the odds of any particular sequence of heads or tails over multiple tosses is very different. The odds of six straight heads in a row is not 50%, the odds of heads on each separate toss, but 50%-to-the-power-of-6, which is 15.6%. If you are a gambler, you would give 50% odds on the outcome of a single toss, but if you gave 50% odds on the outcome of six-in-a-row you would be taken to the cleaners. It is the same with PrEP. The odds of PrEP blocking the virus on each individual occasion are 92%, but the odds of PreP blocking the virus every time on n occasions are 92%-to-the-power-of-n. As 92% is < 1, the larger n is, the smaller 92%-to-the-power-of-n becomes. However, this whole thing is a lot more complex than just the success or failure rate of PrEP. We have three variables in play (my mistake in my last post was to stop at two variables, the problem of responding in the moment rather than thinking it out a bit more). a) The probability of PrEP blocking the virus. 92%. b) The probability of having sex with someone who is poz. This varies with the population. In the Thai gay male population generally, 30%. c) The probability of contracting the virus from a poz partner on any single occasion. This ranges from 33% for someone with a full viral load to a very low number for someone on meds who has managed their condition to an undetectable load. As there are three variables, as the variation in the last one is pretty wide and as there are also other factors at play which affect the probability (How regularly is PrEP used? Presence of another STD which increases the probability of HIV transmission? Type of sexual encounter?) I am not going to try to estimate the probability of contracting HIV if PrEP fails in Thailand as it would be a very subjective and possibly misleading number. Rather, the two tables below give an idea of the degree to which PrEP provides additional protection. Whether this is enough for you to feel confident in using it will I think depend on your personal risk tolerance, the time horizon over which you are thinking and the number of sexual encounters you expect to have over that time horizon. The first table looks at the general risk of PrEP failing during extended use. This is simply the probability of PrEP failing, not the risk of exposure or contracting the virus. The second table looks at the risk during extended use in the Thai gay population of PrEP failing during an encounter with a poz partner. This is the risk of potential exposure to a poz partner but not the risk of infection as that risk additionally depends on the viral load of the partner. What this shows is that while the chances of PrEP failing to work during sex with a poz partner are small on any single occasion, cumulatively over time the more sexually active you are the more likely it is that PrEP will fail on you at least once with a poz partner. This is the sort of risk best thought about over a long time frame, not this week’s party planning. If you are 20, how many sexual encounters do you expect to have had by 30? By 40? By 50? (1) Probability of PrEP failing to block PrEP Generally Interpretation Probability of blocking / not blocking 92% / 8% In any single encounter the probability of PrEP on a single occasion failing to block is 8% Number of sexual encounters before the probability of failure to block rises just above 50% 8 to 9 After 8 to 9 encounters the cumulative probability of PrEP failing to block at least once is just over 50% Number of sexual encounters before the probability 60 After 60 encounters the cumulative probability of of failure to block rises to just over 99% PrEP failing to block at least once is just over 99% (2) Probability of exposure to a poz partner PrEP in Thai gay male Interpretation Population, 30% poz rate Probability of not exposure / exposure to a 97% / 3% In any single encounter the probability of both poz partner on a single occasion (i) PrEP fails and (ii) your partner is poz, is 3% Number of sexual encounters before the 22 to 23 After 22 encounters in a 30% poz population the probability of (i) PrEP failing with (ii) a poz the probability that (i) PrEP fails during (ii) an partner, rises to just over 50% encounter with a poz partner is just over 50%. This is not the same as the probability of Infection which depends additionally on the viral load of your partner. Number of sexual encounters before the 160 After 160 encounters the probability that you probability of exposure to a poz partner have been exposed to a poz partner is just over rises to just over 99% 99%. This is not the same as the probability of infection which depends additionally on the viral load of your partner. The third table tries to get more of a handle on the additional protection provided by PrEP by comparing unprotected sex and bareback sex with PrEP in the riskiest case: sex with only a poz partner with a high viral load. In this case it is possible to estimate the probability of contracting HIV. With PrEP the cumulative risk of infection is lower – 27 encounters to increase the risk of infection to over 50% as opposed to 2 without PrEP and 160 encounters before the probability of infection rises above 99% compared to 60 without PrEP. Again, while PrEP clearly lowers the risk, it is a risk that needs to be considered over the long term. Over what time period are you thinking of using PrEP in otherwise unprotected sex and how many encounters will you have in that time period? (3) Sex with high viral load partner Unprotected sex with PrEP + bareback a high viral load partner with a high viral load partner Probability of not contracting / contracting HIV on a single occasion 66.6% / 33.3% 97.4% / 2.6% Number of sexual encounters before the probability of contraction rises to just over 50% 2 26 to 27 Number of sexual encounters before the probability of contraction rises to just over 99% 60 160 For myself, until there is a cure for AIDs, I will view PrEP as a very useful supplement to safe sex, but not safe sex by itself. bobsaigon, TMax, TotallyOz and 2 others 5 Quote
Finnseventy Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 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? halfhansum 1 Quote
spoon Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 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. Finnseventy and TMax 2 Quote
CurtisD Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 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. Finnseventy and TMax 2 Quote
paborn Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 I want to thank Curtis and Spoon for these excellent explanations. Also, for making me feel young again. I felt like a young student 50 years ago listening to my statistics and probability professor. Good show guys! Quote
PeterRS Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 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. paborn and TMax 2 Quote
Travellerdave Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 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 ?. Quote
paborn Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 This I do know, we are discussing not only probability but the law of large numbers comes into play. One person does not a valid statistical sample make. Having said that, yes you're damn lucky. vinapu 1 Quote
spoon Posted October 6, 2018 Posted October 6, 2018 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. Quote
CurtisD Posted October 6, 2018 Posted October 6, 2018 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. paborn and TMax 2 Quote
Shonen Posted October 6, 2018 Posted October 6, 2018 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. Quote
thaiophilus Posted October 18, 2018 Posted October 18, 2018 "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] CurtisD and TMax 2 Quote
Finnseventy Posted October 20, 2018 Posted October 20, 2018 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. TMax and vinapu 2 Quote
Terry4 Posted October 21, 2018 Author Posted October 21, 2018 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 . Quote
