Boys tested for HIV

[MARK]

Would you as a customer that uses go-go bars like to see the boys tested for HIV, Hepatitis, and syphilis on a monthly basis?.

[Rene]

Would you as a customer that uses go-go bars like to see the boys tested for HIV, Hepatitis, and syphilis on a monthly basis?.

What about swine flu, gonorrhea, venereal warts and chlamydia? If you're going to waste your time and money, you may as well go whole hog!

[sjaak327]

You must be joking. Did you ever realise that these boys are human beings ? Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far.

I doubt you would get away with it legally in any circumstance, of course you seem to be running a gogo bar, which involves prostitution, something that is illegal in Thailand anyway.

[Rene]

You must be joking. Did you ever realise that these boys are human beings ? Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far.

I doubt you would get away with it legally in any circumstance, of course you seem to be running a gogo bar, which involves prostitution, something that is illegal in Thailand anyway.

You are quite right sjaak327 and I agree with you on all counts. But self-righteous people overlook legal niceties when it is convenient and expedient for them to do so as is the case with the element of prostitution here for Mark who is running a male whore house.

You must be joking. Did you ever realise that these boys are human beings ? Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far.

I doubt you would get away with it legally in any circumstance, of course you seem to be running a gogo bar, which involves prostitution, something that is illegal in Thailand anyway.

You are quite right sjaak327 and I agree with you on all counts. But self-righteous people overlook legal niceties when it is convenient and expedient for them to do so as is the case with the element of prostitution here for Mark who is running a male whore house.

And so do ignorant, selfish assholes, drunk or otherwise, who continue to have unsafe sex, either knowingly or not, that they carry HIV or other STD's, and pass these 'treasures' onto their sex partners. :salute:

IMHO, if it was optional, not an occupational requirement, something the boys can use to help themselves. If it led to treatment, was confidential and completely voluntary, why not.
If it was a tool used to discipline, disgrace, embarrass and/or terminate those who tested positive, then no, you might have a problem.
It might also help in raising the boys awareness of safe sex practices.

I voted "NO"...unless you are planning to subject the customers to the same rigorous testing.

[jcowle]

You must be joking. Did you ever realise that these boys are human beings ? Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far.

I doubt you would get away with it legally in any circumstance, of course you seem to be running a gogo bar, which involves prostitution, something that is illegal in Thailand anyway.

sjaak327 i agree with your comments and voted no.

Regards
John

I voted "NO"...unless you are planning to subject the customers to the same rigorous testing.

Excellent reply Bunny, I whole heartedly agree with you, and Mark you should really be ashamed of yourself even asking punters that question. Testing for drug use is one thing but HIV is something else altogether as it is too complicated a virus, and can in fact be present for up to about three months before showing up on a test. If the customer can not practice safe sex then he will in most cases be probably infecting the boy with something rather than the other way around.....
You would be better off talking with your boys on a regular basis and educating them as best you can about the importance of insisting on being safe at all times, even if it means missing out on a payment. They can then report back to you the client who tried to get him to do something that put him in danger, and you could then warn that guy off if he returns to try it on with another of your boys.......

:cheers:

[Smiles]

You must be joking. Did you ever realise that these boys are human beings ? Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far. I doubt you would get away with it legally in any circumstance, of course you seem to be running a gogo bar, which involves prostitution, something that is illegal in Thailand anyway.
You are quite right sjaak327 and I agree with you on all counts. But self-righteous people overlook legal niceties when it is convenient and expedient for them to do so as is the case with the element of prostitution here for Mark who is running a male whore house.
Before you knee-kerkers go off the deep end and start frothing at mouth, you might take into consideration that MARK started a poll asking for a vote of 'yes' or 'no'. Obviously it's too early for a hangin' party as it's just as obvious he hasn't actually implemented anything ... simply asking for opinions from the Community Brain :blackeye: of this Board.

i think it would be good from the boy's point of view. If they do get infected with something, the sooner they find out and get treated the better, both from the point of view of their own health and from spreading it to other customers.

Most (all?) sexual health services recommend that sexually active people should get tested every 6 -12 months for the whole range of STI's. And I would be surprised if many of them are getting themselves tested that often.

Maybe there needs to be some supplementary questions - if they do get tested, should the bar owner be informed? should he be responsible for the cost of treatment as well as testing, including getting paid by the bar? isnt it normal for the employed to be responsible for work related injuries/illness?

[Smiles]

Maybe there should be a poll of the guys who actually work in the bar. Would they like to get a testing ~ on whatever bugs ~ paid for by the bar (?) on a regular basis? Perhaps they would be most happy with such an arrangement.

Perhaps MARK has already done this (i.e. polled every guy in the bar)? I'd like to know the results if he has.

[allieb]

You must be joking. Did you ever realise that these boys are human beings ? Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far.

And why shouldn't they be tested, what's being a human being got to do with it? They have chosen a profession thats high risk. As a matter of fact Mark should offer the customers a test on entering also. There are kits available that give a result in 20 minutes. Two or three drinks a fiddle at the tabled and the result on a tray with the next drink.

[sjaak327]

You must be joking. Did you ever realise that these boys are human beings ? Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far.

And why shouldn't they be tested, what's being a human being got to do with it? They have chosen a profession thats high risk. As a matter of fact Mark should offer the customers a test on entering also. There are kits available that give a result in 20 minutes. Two or three drinks a fiddle at the tabled and the result on a tray with the next drink.

I presume that such a test has consequences, someone that would test positive would likely loose his job. Of course due to the incubation time, such a test would not guarantee anything in any case. Why take people through tests that clearly have no consideration with a person's privacy,

[ceejay]

Something that some of you need to know, and others have mentioned. Most tests, including the quick test (something like the OraQuick test perhaps?) Allieb refers to test for the immune response to the HIV virus (antibody tests). Typically, this reaction is not observable for 3-6 months after infection takes place, which is why re-testing after 3 or 6 months is required to give a definite negative. Re-testing is worthless if the individual has engaged in sex in the meanwhile.

The period before the immune response is detectable is when the HIV virus is at its most transmissible.

So, all a negative routine test or quick test tells you is that if the individual has been infected with HIV, then it was within the last 3 months or so. It is not an "all clear". You can get a negative result from infected people at a stage of the disease when it is at its most infectious.

There are tests for the virus itself (antigen tests) but they take longer and cost a lot more.

So - your own health still your own responsibility guys. Testing bar boys will not keep you safe.

I agree with Beach Bunny on this one - you run a real risk of creating the unintended consequence of some customers forming a false sense of security, indulging in risky behaviour and making the problem worse rather than better, so I have voted "no".

Mark - rather than starting what would be an expensive and, in my opinion, pointless exercise, I think a smaller amount of money would be better spent sponsoring the SWING Foundation, and having them visit your bar and explain the need for safe sex, and what they need to do to make it safe, to your staff, on a regular basis.

(edit) I've just re-read that, and have at the least left myself open to misinterpretation. Mark is addressing his question to his customers. Only from that point of view is testing "rather pointless". From the point of view of the welfare of the boys, and especially if Mark intends to provide support and medical assistance for any who test positive, then it is far from pointless.

You must be joking. Did you ever realise that these boys are human beings ? Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far.

And why shouldn't they be tested, what's being a human being got to do with it? They have chosen a profession thats high risk. As a matter of fact Mark should offer the customers a test on entering also. There are kits available that give a result in 20 minutes. Two or three drinks a fiddle at the tabled and the result on a tray with the next drink.


I have no problem with this with this so long as it isn`t a prick!







I have a morbid fear of needles! :clown:
How are ya you handsome devil?

Something that some of you need to know, and others have mentioned. Most tests, including the quick test (something like the OraQuick test perhaps?) Allieb refers to test for the immune response to the HIV virus (antibody tests). Typically, this reaction is not observable for 3-6 months after infection takes place, which is why re-testing after 3 or 6 months is required to give a definite negative. Re-testing is worthless if the individual has engaged in sex in the meanwhile.


At my last check-up, I was actually offered two tests. The first test required the three month window. The second test, which is new and apparently tests for certain protein strands, is quite accurate and can be done I think four weeks after suspected exposure.

The nurse explained it me, but I don't recall the details. I remember protein strands, four weeks, I'm going to poke you, come back in seven days.

[MARK]

Maybe there should be a poll of the guys who actually work in the bar. Would they like to get a testing ~ on whatever bugs ~ paid for by the bar (?) on a regular basis? Perhaps they would be most happy with such an arrangement.

Perhaps MARK has already done this (i.e. polled every guy in the bar)? I'd like to know the results if he has.

No I have not asked the boys as it was only a thought that I had after reading a response but tomorrow I will be asking them if they would like free testing from the bar as most canтАЩt afford to go for regular check up so I will happily let you know what the staff think of the idea.

[ceejay]

The second test, which is new and apparently tests for certain protein strands, is quite accurate and can be done I think four weeks after suspected exposure.
That, I think, will be one of the antigen sensitive tests I mentioned later. They detect proteins specific to the virus in the bloodstream. They are more clearly definitive than the antibody tests. They are most effective in the early stage of infection, when there is a relatively large amount of the virus in the blood. After the initial 3-6 month phase, when the virus typically becomes more or less occult for a number of years, the antibody tests are more effective so you do need both for greater (but not absolute) certainty.

[Davey612]

Mark, so, what are your plans if a guy test positive?

[Impulse]

I say YES to testing.And if they fail they must get treated or they cant work.This will make it safer for customers and the workers themselves. Provide education of safe sex and consequences if not used. If they have hiv they can at least know what they have and when their cd4s fall below 200 they can start treatment and avoid opportunistic infections and complications of tb. If they get syphillus or ghonerhea ,it can be treated right away. If they know they might lose their jobs they will take safe sex more seriously. As it is now,enough money offered will lead to unsafe sex. I think all bar owners should be required to at least discuss and have brochures in thai of the dangers of sex without condoms. If a worker is not made aware of the risks of unsafe sex,to me ,this is criminal.Just as bad as under age sex.

[Wesley]

You must be joking. Did you ever realise that these boys are human beings ? Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far.

And why shouldn't they be tested, what's being a human being got to do with it? They have chosen a profession thats high risk. As a matter of fact Mark should offer the customers a test on entering also. There are kits available that give a result in 20 minutes. Two or three drinks a fiddle at the tabled and the result on a tray with the next drink.


I have no problem with this with this so long as it isn`t a prick!

I agre with the idea that the boy may be getting and unexpected jump on a deadly problem. I would prefer to know, if I have it and I test myself every 6 months for that and ST D's and the STD test was about 200 USA here, however for me it is worth it. I don't want to hurt others nor do I want them to hurt me. Safe sex, I guess is not totally fool proof , well let me take that back, it may be for BB as I consider him to be the only fool on the board. So, it may work on him, however, I think as smiles pointed out he was looking for opinions not assholes. which again where BB comes into play.

And no BB no need to comet I am never going to open another post of yours , as jinks pointed out in that case I am my own worse enemy if I answer you.

but it seems needful and whether legal or not and although as long as it is kept confidential and he would not be at risk of loosing his job then, yes I would feel more comfortable going to his bar than those who do not test. I wold think that counseling him in teh matter would help if done in a group session so as to not single anyone out.

All teh bwst mark , keep up the good work

Wes







I have a morbid fear of needles! :clown:
How are ya you handsome devil?

[MARK]

Mark, so, what are your plans if a guy test positive?

Just a quick response to some of the points raised.
There are sex and health educatorsтАЩ that visit the bars and I do not refer to the free condom givers there are government backed health workers that come to the bars and talk with the staff.

All Thais can receive health care and medication for any ailment in their home town for 30bht a visit and they can pay an additional 220bht per month at the moment to be treated and any other hospital outside their own town prescription fees included this will raise to 440bht in December the 30bht fee remaining the same.

As for asking me what I will do if a boy tested positive I have no idea but I will be taking the matter up with the staff to see how they feel about it and if thay would like a free check.

But please remember this just a forum and I posed a simple question and members thoughts on that question.
CanтАЩt remember posting that I was implementing any plan or expelling the unclean to the outer limits I have a little more respect for my staff than that. :scratch:

Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far. I doubt you would get away with it legally in any circumstance,

It is mandatory for any new staff in many restaurants in Thailand, and has been for several years.

Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far. I doubt you would get away with it legally in any circumstance,

It is mandatory for any new staff in many restaurants in Thailand, and has been for several years.

Never heard of such a thing -- and even it is true, I am 100% sure it is not enforced in 99.9999% of the restaurants in the country.

As for asking me what I will do if a boy tested positive I have no idea but I will be taking the matter up with the staff to see how they feel about it and if thay would like a free check.

CanтАЩt remember posting that I was implementing any plan or expelling the unclean to the outer limits I have a little more respect for my staff than that. :scratch:

Mark, maybe you should have given it a bit more thought first.

Apart from the obvious problem of what to do if a boy tests positive (and some almost certainly will who are not aware of it, while others who are aware will be able to get around it as they do elsewhere) there is another major potential problem:

If the boys opt for free testing, then there is some obligation on you to provide it - have you costed out how much it wll set you back to test all the boys once a month, and is such a cost acceptable?



Never heard of such a thing -- and even it is true, I am 100% sure it is not enforced in 99.9999% of the restaurants in the country.

Well, BB, that puts your knowledge of what does and does not happen into perspective. It is mandatory and enforced in the majority of franchised restaurants (as distinct from fast food outlets, etc) as well as in the larger hotels for all new staff whether they are waiters or cooks and, in some cases, cleaners. That includes, for example, nearly all restaurants in Central (all branches) - and I am 100% sure because some of my "in-laws" work in restaurants there and all had to be tested prior to being employed (the latest being one monthg ago); I do not know how many restaurants that involves, but I would imagine it to be rather more than 0.0001%.

No, I'd say .0001% is about right. Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of restaurants and food stalls there are in this country, and how few of them are franchises or in hotels?

No

[Diec]

I say if the boy tests positive for HIV, let them work in the bar but have them wear a red number instead of the usual color and let the customer decide if he wants to off him.

[sjaak327]

I say if the boy tests positive for HIV, let them work in the bar but have them wear a red number instead of the usual color and let the customer decide if he wants to off him.

FFS, I sure hope you are not serious.



It is mandatory for any new staff in many restaurants in Thailand, and has been for several years.

Well, my Lao boyfriend did tell me that one of his former employers did indeed suggested HIV tests for all the employees, but as far as I can recall it was voluntary. (He used to be a cook at a restaurant)

In any case, if this is allowed by law, it's another example of why Thailand sometimes feels like a banana republic. Not only is being HIV positive a private and personal matter, but it is also not in any way applicable to working in a restaurant, unless of course I have my definition of a restaurant messed up. Last time I looked, someone who is HIV positive can work perfectly well in a restaurant.

[Irish1972]

I say if the boy tests positive for HIV, let them work in the bar but have them wear a red number instead of the usual color and let the customer decide if he wants to off him.

Maybe it should be tatooed on their head and ass?

What a foolish idea.

Also having met Mark once or twice, although briefly, I am sure that Marks intentions are the welfare of the boys that work there and not a cynical attempt at creating business as has been mentioned by others.

[Diec]

Then what is the purpose of Mark testing the boys for HIV? In my mind if does this testing and some of the boys test positive, he has these options:

1. Fire the boy
2. Notify the customers that yes the boys have been tested but I'm not going to tell you which if any tested positive
3. Notify the customers that as of (pick a date) all the boys have tested negative for HIV
4. Forgo the testing all together and let the buyer beware

I also love the fact that every time HIV is brought up, every board member climbs up to their platform and cry out "how can anyone have sex without a condom?" But I know for a fact that there are several members who do!! You know which ones you are. Such hypocrisy.

[Davey612]

This is my idea and and I am not sure whether it is workable. Obviously, most of the STDs can be treated and most likely, nobody will object for such tests and treatments. As we all have read, the thorny issues are HIV and Hepatitis C. There are no cures yet and what do you do when someone's result is positive for either or both of them?

So, I would find a trusted health organization to conduct an anonymous testing program through which a person can be tested on an ongoing basis (every six months?) that includes counseling (does the Red Cross in Thailand still do this?). Maybe make it mandatory before being hired. All that management needs to know is to verify that someone has been tested according to a schedule. Hopefully, the education and counseling is enough so that even if an affected employee chooses to continue to work, he will practice safer sex with whomever he ends up.

It is not perfect but in the end, it is up to the individual to be responsible for his own sexual behavior.

[Irish1972]

I cannot answer for Mark and will not try to.

If a person chooses to have unsafe sex with another person, that is their business and should not be any of yours or anybody else's for that matter.

I dont have a problem with two people choosing to take a risk like that, I would only take issue with it if they try to play down the danger of it here or any other public forum or in the case of one being a prostitute that they were coerced into it with the offer of extra money or other type of pressure.

I say if the boy tests positive for HIV, let them work in the bar but have them wear a red number instead of the usual color and let the customer decide if he wants to off him.

Surprising. I would have thought you'd prefer something in maroon...but granted, there is greater literary precedent for a Scarlet Letter...

Threads like this make me sad. Many posters say they support testing for the benefit of the boys, but few, I imagine, are sincere. So many - if you look carefully at the wording of the posts - are simply motivated by FEARтАж.fear of contracting AIDS themselves; the health, livelihood, job security of the boys is a feigned afterthought at bestтАж.

LetтАЩs be honest and direct: These people want to be able to hire a prostitute for sex without the fear of contracting a disease from the boys. The burden for eliminating risk, they imply, should be on the bar owner, and the boys, to the maximum extent possible, no matter the cost or inconvenience to the boys. After all, as one of us has said, whatтАЩs being a human being got to do with it?

The persons supporting this testing are not thinking, I humbly suggest, of the logical and inevitable consequences of such a policy. What happens to those who test HIV+? (and there will be those who do..!) One poster suggested a Scarlet Letter. Please do not be fooled into thinking that this is a minority view; many, when driven by ignorant fear of a deadly disease, would accede to such a plan. ThereтАЩs ample historical precedent. That one of our own would suggest it sends chills...

And if a bar owner voluntarily institutes these measures, then would not this encourage a homophobic government to expand/formalize such policies? (тАЬWell, if they [the gay bars] do it, then why shouldnтАЩt we [the government]?тАЭ) And then, when a relatively significant portion of the bar staff in Sunee test positive for this or that, would not a conservative outcry ensue to shut down these havens of disease transmission? I recall a story about killing the goose that laid the golden egg etc etcтАж

These battles have been fought before, earlier in the epidemic тАУ e.g., San Francisco, New York and other major cities with large gay communities. In those communities, the gay people тАУ both HIV - and HIV+ тАУ viewed themselves as a united whole, and viewed their interests as one. And they united against government and other forces who wanted to come in, test everyone, and quarantine those who are infected (like several governments didтАжe.g., Cuba). They answered the question poised earlier in this thread, тАЬWhat's being a human got to do with it?тАЭ with a united, unequivocal, тАЬItтАЩs got everything to do with it!тАЭ They said, It is each individual personтАЩs responsibility to remain HIV -, and it is a result of the choices you make. ItтАЩs pretty simple:

No sex = zero risk;
safe sex = a little, probably very little risk;
unsafe sex = a whole lotta risk.

Up to you, as the Thai say.

Apparently posters in this thread want to change the equation, to remove the тАЬvery little riskтАЭ to themselves that exists even in safe sex; they appear willing to destroy a bar boyтАЩs professional career by requiring testing (and serving the test result on the tray with the bar tabтАжpardon me while I puke! ) All for the selfish desire to indulge in casual, commercial sex while minimizing the inherent risk to themselves, at the expense of the lives and livelihood of those willing to provide the serviceтАжso pathetic.

But, frankly, nothing surprises me anymore, even from members of my own community. Clearly, the early lessons of the epidemic in the late 80тАЩs/early 90тАЩs have been lost.

Hear, hear.

I am a complete medical voyeur - Holby City is my favourite soapie on television. Yes, I would love to see the boys being tested for all of those diseases and anything else, Crabs, for example. Could I hold the flashlight?

[piston10]

Thank you, SF farang, for making it clearer to me than I made it to myself why I voted 'No'. However, I do see a difference between compulsory HIV testing and offering the boys a regular opportunity to be tested for curable SDT's. The latter seems to be in the interests of everyone.

An excellent post, I think.

Thank you SF farang, a well written post well worthy of a round of applause and a resounding "hear, hear".

:cheers:

The persons supporting this testing are not thinking, I humbly suggest, of the logical and inevitable consequences of such a policy. What happens to those who test HIV+? .

I humbly disagree. Yes, some of the people agreeing with the testing may be doing so in their own interests. But some of us aren't going to benefit directly as we don't hire prostitutes, though of course we may benefit indirectly from any measures that might reduce the overall prevalence of HIV and other STIs in the community.

To my mind there is no question that the staff should be getting regular health checks, for their own benefit and nothing to do with the customers. If they do pick up some infection the sooner they know about it start getting treatment the better.

The only questions I can see are who pays for the testing, and the "logical and inevitable consequences" of testing positive. And I concede that customers having the impression that all the staff are "clean" might lead to them engaging in unsafe sex, but if the testing wasn't publicised as a selling point for the bar, this shouldnt be an issue.

if this is allowed by law, it's another example of why Thailand sometimes feels like a banana republic тАж.. Last time I looked, someone who is HIV positive can work perfectly well in a restaurant.

Agreed (except for your idea of what constitutes "a banana republic"!). It is also common, again only for newly employed staff, in some Thai owned karaoke bars; I presume it is only for new staff rather than as a regular test because it is done at the applicant's expense.


All that management needs to know is to verify that someone has been tested according to a schedule. Hopefully, the education and counseling is enough so that even if an affected employee chooses to continue to work, he will practice safer sex with whomever he ends up.

Hope springs eternal, and you are hoping that everybody will act responsibly and selflessly; if those proving HIV + had acted responsibly in the first place they may well not be in such a position, so I would imagine that the odds are least as good that he would see little to be gained anymore by doing so and that he may be even more "unsafe" in his behaviour.


Threads like this make me sad.

Why? "Fear" is the greatest motivator known to man - giving way to it is human nature and admitting it is no more than being honest.

The poll results are also hardly representative of the views of many posting here as the poll concerns STDs as well as HIV and makes no mention of the use to be made of the results. The ultimate deciding factor will, in any case, have nothing to do wih the views of the staff or the customers, or what the owners would have done with the results - it is simply too expensive for regular and effective testing to be carried out regularly.

[Davey612]

I am a complete medical voyeur - Holby City is my favourite soapie on television. Yes, I would love to see the boys being tested for all of those diseases and anything else, Crabs, for example. Could I hold the flashlight?

Rick, Rick, is that you? [For those who do not know, ask members of the old Dreadedned forum]. Ah, a solution: Mark should provide free flashlights to customers.

But all kidding aside, I do agree with GF. Wow. Yes, people who practice unsafe sex may continue doing so, customer or employee. What I am just trying to say about a regular test schedule is that somehow, the constant regular testing and counselling may affect a person's behavior. But in the end, it may be too expensive for Mark to shoulder the costs unless there is some government or NGO program.

[Impulse]

But all kidding aside, I do agree with GF. Wow. Yes, people who practice unsafe sex may continue doing so, customer or employee. What I am just trying to say about a regular test schedule is that somehow, the constant regular testing and counselling may affect a person's behavior. But in the end, it may be too expensive for Mark to shoulder the costs unless there is some government or NGO program. Regular testing might change their behavior,bingo. And Id be willing to bet that the majority of posters here practice unsafe sex.

And Id be willing to bet that the majority of posters here practice unsafe sex.Most of us don't use a condom in anal sex? On what do you base that assertion?

[Doug]

If the boys are to be tested, isn't it fair play for the farangs to be tested as well? Shouldn't the customers be made to show proof that they've been tested within the past month. Or do we only care that the boys are "clean" but the the boys are only prostitutes therefore they do not need to be protected from us.

[cuteboy]

Well done, Mark for having the good sense to think about this.
You will note that the great majority of those who have voted are in favour. As am I. Now that's brave considering the vitriolic reaction from the vocal MINORITY.
Yes, I would like to know that any boy I off is free of HIV. I would not off a boy whom I knew to be HIV+
I am trully surprised that the majority who post can disagree.
There is an obvious reason for this but there are others.
To test the boys would increase their awareness of the issue and promote their engaging in safe sex only, which is in everybody's interest.
I would like to comment on a post made so far
I dont have a problem with two people choosing to take a risk like that, I would only take issue with it if they try to play down the danger of it here or any other public forum or in the case of one being a prostitute that they were coerced into it with the offer of extra money or other type of pressure.
I am sorry. The comment is well-intentioned, but not well informed. Boys are routinely obliged to take part in unprotected sex. Now, if a boy is popular with a high income he can easily say no; if not he has a problem. The rent has to be paid and the bar kept happy. Many are not really aware of the risks involved. Many think that they will get infected if they are 'unlucky'. Unsafe sex is rife, and the issue has been discussed here for years. So has the fact that far too many boys die of AIDS. A minority in Pattaya, most return to their villages and die quietly.
If you did not know this, well, now you do. If you do not believe me, talk to the boys, and do a lot of listening. That will confirm the truth.
Mark's suggestion would probably cut the number of deaths significantly. But wait, I have forgotten that they are people with feelings. Get real.

[sjaak327]

^ First of all, you seem to imply that these boys somehow don't know what risks they are taking, if that is indeed true, some education would be welcomed by all I am sure. As to mandatory testing, this is still a bridge too far. Not to mention the idiotic idea to label people that happen to be HIV+ as suggested by someone here.

As to your desire to off someone who is HIV- whilst I can understand that, you are putting the burden of proof onto the establishment that provides the service, in my view, there is a very simple solution, don't off a boy, don't hire prostitutes.

As to boys being forced to have unprotected sex, you might think that if this indeed happens, it would be all the more reason to enforce the law and actively stop prostitution.

[Irish1972]

I am sorry. The comment is well-intentioned, but not well informed. Boys are routinely obliged to take part in unprotected sex. Now, if a boy is popular with a high income he can easily say no; if not he has a problem. The rent has to be paid and the bar kept happy. Many are not really aware of the risks involved. Many think that they will get infected if they are 'unlucky'. Unsafe sex is rife, and the issue has been discussed here for years. So has the fact that far too many boys die of AIDS. A minority in Pattaya, most return to their villages and die quietly.
If you did not know this, well, now you do. If you do not believe me, talk to the boys, and do a lot of listening. That will confirm the truth.
Mark's suggestion would probably cut the number of deaths significantly. But wait, I have forgotten that they are people with feelings. Get real.

I never said I was against testing, my arguement is the "branding" of the boys as "unclean" with red numbers or some other shit that was proposed. If the results are between the boy and the bar thats fine with me. I am well aware of the risks I spent 2 years working in GU clinics in London, the onus is on me to keep myslef negative, not a boy or a bar owner.

I am also well aware that boys are sometimes left with no option, hence my comment about being coerced into it.

[giggsy]

Throwing "swine flu parties" in an attempt to get immunity against the virus while it is a fairly mild form is not a good idea, doctors say.
Reports have emerged of people intentionally mixing with friends who have flu.
Their reasoning is that it is best to be infected before the winter when the virus could become more deadly.

So I guess throwing a party at Crazy Dragon to catch HIV, hepititis, syphilis and other STD's is about the only thing Mark is not contemplating in the next few weeks.

Well done, Mark for having the good sense to think about this.
You will note that the great majority of those who have voted are in favour. As am I. Now that's brave considering the vitriolic reaction from the vocal MINORITY.
Yes, I would like to know that any boy I off is free of HIV. I would not off a boy whom I knew to be HIV+
I am trully surprised that the majority who post can disagree.
There is an obvious reason for this but there are others.

Cuteboy, arenтАЩt you the poster who created the тАЬAIDS тАУ NeungтАЭ thread and speculated that the young man Neung had died from HIV (even though his friend had specifically said that he did not have HIV), and then proceeded to say that all these young men die because тАЬWe [farang] kill them..тАжтАЭ?

I donтАЩt know if youтАЩve got a frog in your pocket but тАЬweтАЭ havenтАЩt killed anyone. YouтАЩre too much of a whack job to pay much attention to.

I voted тАЬNoтАЭ simply because the poll question is far too vague and I would not want my yes vote to be used to justify something like, тАЬOK, you guys all said yes, so IтАЩm testing all the boys and firing all the positive guysтАжтАЭ (not that Mark would ever do that, but who knows?). Perhaps I've just seen too many polls manipulated for nefarious reasons in my lifetime....

If the question had been, тАЬWould you as customer like to see the boys tested and privately counseled, the results kept private (not revealed to the employer or customer), and would you pay a higher off fee if you knew this were being done?тАЭ I would have voted yes. I suspect most (perhaps all) of us would. However I am skeptical that such lofty sentiment we express in a poll would translate into a viable business practice for a single bar, unless all the competition adopted the same policy.

But testing the boys in order to cater to the whims of customers who simply want to know because, they, like you, тАЬwould not off an HIV+ boyтАЭ is grossly exploitative. The boys face risk every day, in order to provide the service; the customers, in my opinion, deserve no тАЬfree passтАЭ on sharing that risk. That risk is an inherent part of the game called тАЬprostitution.тАЭ You can minimize the risk to both parties by engaging in safer sex practices. Trying to cheat the system by screening out the infected prostitutes without screening the тАЬjohnsтАЭ would be an immoral exploitation of the boys. And screening the johns would kill the business.

[Impulse]

Im all for testing customers also,Id be the first in line to be tested,as I would like to know if I had something and wouldnt want to give it to a worker. Safe sex means doing oral with a condom.

Safe sex means doing oral with a condom.

Well that explains your previous, inexplicable statement:


And Id be willing to bet that the majority of posters here practice unsafe sex.

If you define unprotected oral sex as unsafe, then you're probably correct about most posters.

Conventional wisdom says it's not. For most persons, it's an acceptable risk.

and it seems most (or all) HIV experts agree that oral sex without a condom poses minimal risk, which is as close as they will ever get to saying to zero risk.
of course other STIs can be transmitted by oral sex, and some of them cant be prevented by the use of a condom. so if u r talking about zero risk from all STIs, looks like all sex is out of the question, condom or not.

[Impulse]

and it seems most (or all) HIV experts agree that oral sex without a condom poses minimal risk, which is as close as they will ever get to saying to zero risk.
of course other STIs can be transmitted by oral sex, and some of them cant be prevented by the use of a condom. so if u r talking about zero risk from all STIs, looks like all sex is out of the question, condom or not. Thats why when I off a guy from a bar we play cards or watch tv only.Sometimes Ill just watch him masturbate. :profileleft: :profileright: Seriously I dont play safe with oral either.

[cuteboy]

SF Farang.
A response.
Yes, I did make the post about Neung. I did not engage in a tit for tat on that occasion, and will not do so now. But it did surprise me that you had such certain knowledge that I was wrong.
Sorry, but I am quite sure that my sources were more reliable than yours. The unfortunate boy, whom I knew a litttle, had AIDS.
Why it is worth replying now is that we have yet another example of denial. Why does it matter to you whether he died of AIDS or not? Are you suggesting that it is rare for boys to die of AIDS? I note that someone on the staff of the bar or a 'friend' denied that he died of AIDS. There may be 2 reasons for this. First he may not have known, or even understood that a young man who apparently dies of other named diseases, really dies because of AIDS. However I would guess that you do know of this. Second, the friend may have known and understood but saw no reason to share sensitive information with you.
What bit of my post do you not like? What is whacky? I think the responsibility for the deaths of so many ill-educated and poorly informed young men who work in Pattaya rests with the clients and the bar owners. Consenting adults? Oh really?
Boys are not dying of AIDS?
About Neung I will now say no more. I have not been drawn to comment on his untimely death for years and will not comment again. He was exploited enough.

What bit of my post do you not like? What is whacky?

In order:

Yes, I would like to know that any boy I off is free of HIV.

So would we all. Unfortunately this is not possible unless you off him and then isolate him for up to twelve weeks before testing him.

I am trully surprised that the majority who post can disagree.

That is not what they disagreed with - see Irish 1972 and SF Farang's posts for an explanation.

To test the boys would increase their awareness of the issue and promote their engaging in safe sex only, which is in everybody's interest.

Wrong. Could, not would.

Boys are routinely obliged to take part in unprotected sex.

What is your basis for this assertion? Who is doing the obliging? While I am sure it happens I I am equally sure it is far from routine and there is no obligation - no bars, as far as I know, force their boys to have sex with anyone; if they did they would soon be without staff.

Many think that they will get infected if they are 'unlucky'.

And they are correct.

Mark's suggestion would probably cut the number of deaths significantly.

How? Apart from testing at as yet unspecified intervals nobody, including Mark, knows what "Mark's suggestion" of what to do with the results of those tests is.


I sympathise with your motives and even agree with your sentiments, as you can see from the number of posts I have made
on this subject (http://http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/gay-thailand/increases-hiv-infection-t16305.html?hilit=hiv#p163287) but saying that "the responsibility for the deaths of so many ill-educated and poorly informed young men who work in Pattaya" solely "rests with the clients and the bar owners" and implying that they are not "consenting adults" is not only unrealistic but it is as insulting to the intelligence of the working boys (and girls) as it is to those posting their views here; they will, after all, have seen far more of their friends and colleagues dying of HIV /Aids than you or I.

[cuteboy]

Gone Fishing,
Thank you for your considered response to my observations. Our differences of opinion are of degree I think, but I would make the following observations.
Yes, I would like to know that any boy I off is free of HIV.

So would we all. Unfortunately this is not possible unless you off him and then isolate him for up to twelve weeks before testing him.
What you say is of course true, but I believe that were the sex workers to be regularly tested there would be 2 effects
1 The chances of their working while HIV+ would be reduced. Now a boy could continue to work for years while HIV+, not for some weeks.
2 I do think that regular tests would increase awareness and hopefully reduce the boys readiness to engage in unprotected sex.


Boys are routinely obliged to take part in unprotected sex.

What is your basis for this assertion? Who is doing the obliging? While I am sure it happens I I am equally sure it is far from routine and there is no obligation - no bars, as far as I know, force their boys to have sex with anyone; if they did they would soon be without staff.

OK, I may have overstated the case. Depends how you read the word routine. I said in the first post that boys who earn well are in a position to say no to unprotected sex, others can not always do so. They have the rent to pay.
Evidence? Both in speaking to boys (very many engage in unprotected sex) and I would also refer to another old discussion. There was going round a time ago a video where boys from one bar in Pattaya are shown engaged in unprotected sex. Each file listed boy and bar. The number was not small. One farang was engaged with each boy. I assume he made a sufficiently attractive offer.

Many think that they will get infected if they are 'unlucky'.

And they are correct.

My point is that many are very poorly informed about risks. Many boys in Thailand ride motorbikes at crazy speeds and when a friend is hurt or dies there is a shrug and it is put down to bad luck, as if their behaviour was not the principal factor

The sex between Thai boys and farang is rarely an encounter between equals. One party of course has the cash, the other does not, but in addition, one party is generally older and better informed than the other. Very large numbers of boys in Pattaya have no idea of what they are getting into or the risks they take until it is too late.

It is a very sensitive subject. In my humble opinion, as long as us Johns are not stupid enough to assume some kind of false security (health wise), I think such decision makes sense. Though most posts here seem to against it, the anonymous poll speaks for itself: A clear majority of us -- hypocrite or not -- support mandatory monthly testing for the boys.

I am not going argue around their privacy issue, as the boys privacy has already been neglected by wearing those revealing boxer shorts to begin with (joke). No matter how nice we treat them and how sweet the smile they put on, at the end of the day we are Johns and they are prostitutes. When truckloads of fresh meat being shipped in everyday, those service providers are inevitably more vulnerable as their only option is to walk away if a deal turns sour. It has never been a fair and level game to begin with.

Would I like to see mandatory eye-sight examination for the driver who sped me to airport from Bangkok downtown in 20mins (140km/hr)? You bet I do.

[Diec]

With everyone here professing to only having safe sex, I don't understand the issue wanting to be sure the young stud you off is HIV free. The only reason I can see is so the farang can feel comfortable when him and his boy stick it to each other without a condom. What about the myriad of STD's that are out there? When you have sex with a prostitute, you should assume they are all HIV positive and have sex accordingly. Their HIV status is their business, why do you need to know? If he is HIV negative will that change what you do in bed with him? If not, then why would you care?

With everyone here professing to only having safe sex, I don't understand the issue wanting to be sure the young stud you off is HIV free. The only reason I can see is so the farang can feel comfortable when him and his boy stick it to each other without a condom. What about the myriad of STD's that are out there? When you have sex with a prostitute, you should assume they are all HIV positive and have sex accordingly. Their HIV status is their business, why do you need to know? If he is HIV negative will that change what you do in bed with him? If not, then why would you care?


I would also add that to want to know before offing a guy means that, either one doesn't understand the impossibility of getting infected with HIV and other STD's if safe sex is practiced or that the punter thinks it will be his right to practice unsafe sex with the guy who he thinks is now 'clean'. Thinking that the boys will be better looked after if they know their own status does not address the main point which as previously mentioned should be prevention rather than a cure i.e. education, education, education.....

cheers

[sjaak327]

^ for any punter to think they can now pratice unsafe sex, I am assuming that they will happily provide their monthly test results for the boys to examine..

I for one would not trust a whoremonger one bit.

But of course that's all bullshit, as anyone knows tests are not 100% reliable due to incubation time in any case.

Our differences of opinion are of degree I think

Correct. I was going to reply to you by PM in case you thouht I was not taking you seriously, but on second thoughts I could see no reason not to post my views here.

While I don't agree with some of the things you say, I dislike and disagree far more with some of the things that others avoid saying, both on here and in real life.

Fair enough, we should all respect others both in life and in death but deliberately avoiding the mention of the dreaded boogeyman "HIV / Aids" is not showing the respect some imagine and it often seems to be done more out of fear of association than out of respect. Most of us would try to avoid saying that a friend is a drug addict just as we would try to avoid saying that a friend has died of a drug overdose - partly because we may not like to speak ill of our friends and partly because we may be afraid to admit that we have such people as friends in case we are tarred with the same brush. Few people are prepared to risk being thought of as addicts, so they avoid any mention that a friend is addicted. Unfortunately the fear of HIV / Aids has, to some, taken on a similar characteristic: if we admit that a friend has HIV or has died of Aids then there may be a risk that someone may think we too have HIV or that we too (so they assume) are careless, promiscuous, or just plain "unlucky". Far better, surely, to claim respect for the dead or the diseased and avoid the subject than to risk such condemnation and disapproval?

What utter, hypocritical garbage.

Those with HIV / Aids are no different from the rest of us - just, in most cases, unluckier. No better, no worse, and no more and no less deserving of friendship or respect. To me, and I am fortunate enough to be HIV-, the biggest insult I could give to anyone who has HIV or who is dead or dying of Aids would be to defend them by denying it - unless that is what they want.

HIV / Aids is frightening for everybody whether you have it or not, but denying it is not going to make it go away or to make it any less prevalent or widespread - if anything it will do the reverse.

I am no less prone to fear than anyone else, but that is no excuse.

Even though my "ex" was diagnosed HIV+ nearly 10 years ago (he didn't particularly care then or since, but that is another story (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/gay-thailand/increases-hiv-infection-t16305.html?hilit=Aids#p163287)) I did not have an HIV test myself until this year - I have always practiced safe sex, including with him (on the very few occasions when we had sex!), so I convinced myself that there was no need. I was in denial - I deliberately ignored the times, for example, when I patched him up after various motorbike accidents. I simply did not want to know. Stupid. Soon after my partner moved in, over six years ago, he had an HIV test which he did not tell me about until he asked me to pick him up from BHP (we had been shopping and he had told me he was going to see a friend) and he showed me his negative test with an enormous smile on his face. I still did not think about taking a test myself, even though in hindsight I could have been of far more danger to him than he was to me. Stupid - and unfair.

Earlier this year we went for our annual medical checkups at BHP and while we were waiting for the results he asked if he could have an HIV test too; a friend of his who is HIV+ had stayed with us for a night three months before and he had spent the intervening period worrying about his somehow having caught it. As it would hardly have been fair for him to be tested but not me I also had a test and it struck me that there was as much chance of my being positive as him, if not more - he is obsessive about hygiene to the point of OCD and will, for example, not even touch a door handle outside the house unless it is absolutely unavoidable. Fortunately we were both negative, but had I acted responsibly I should have had the test long before.

Stupid - but no less stupid than those who deny that as many as 20% of those working in the bar/freelance scene probably have HIV and who claim that a lot of those dying from Aids are instead dying from meningitis or some other obscure but unidentified disease.

Fear is a motivator, but it is not an excuse for some of the things being said here or for some of those things not being said.

If I recall correctly there was uproar on this board when a notice that had been posted at the Lumpini swimming pool that all Farangs had to have a health certificate stating they were disease free before being permitted to use the pool was mentioned

There was indeed - even when it was pointed out that the requirement for the health certificate applied to all users (farang and Thai)

[Diec]

My goodness Fish, it's almost the year 2010 and you are still stuck in 1990. I don't know anyone who knows a drug addict or someone with HIV who is afraid to admit that for fear the person they are talking to will think they have the same affliction as well. Your post was like a benign tumor, not life threatening, but annoying none the less. I noticed how you killed the lead of your story by quickly stating your HIV status in the 2nd sentence to ensure us that you are HIV free.

I am no less prone to fear than anyone else, but that is no excuse

That was a dumb sentence, you didn't even elaborate. Your next paragraph you make sure to let us know your HIV boyfriend is your ex by putting " " 's around ex. Be sure to distance yourself from him in case anyone gets some ideas.

Who needs a sleeping pill when all one needs to do is read one of your long rambling posts.

HIV is getting to be like any to be like any other chronic disease we can treat with a regime of drugs. I take multiple drugs several times a day for diabetes and associated complications. A friend of mine in Pattaya has an ex-bar boy living with him who is HIV+ and who has regular check-ups at one of Thailand's leading hospitals. However the boy is completely silent about his HIV status with everyone Thai - even the boy who shares his room.

[yedo111]

I voted YES as the majority did .

However it can be very difficult to have the boys tested, they will not be very open about it .

As a custumer looking for sex , yes it would feel safer if you knew the boys have been tested negative.

Still its no insurance . If you practise unsafe sex you're taking a big risk and have to live with the consequenses.

So dont be stupid .

You must be joking. Did you ever realise that these boys are human beings ? Some things are clearly private, testing someone for HIV is clearly a step too far.

I doubt you would get away with it legally in any circumstance, of course you seem to be running a gogo bar, which involves prostitution, something that is illegal in Thailand anyway.


I thought years ago government health workers (allegedly) tested sex workers regularly for STD's. I'm sure it was haphazard and ineffective, but there certainly have been efforts on the part of government to control the spread of sexually transmitted disease amongst sex workers, so I doubt it would be a "step too far" if done properly.

I think at least one bar owner in Boyztown has offered alternative employment to those who have tested positive. Presumably they were found through some screening programme.

I don't know anyone who knows a drug addict or someone with HIV who is afraid to admit that for fear the person they are talking to will think they have the same affliction as well.

Evidently you know very few people, particularly Thais; while not "the norm" it is far from uncommon.

I actually stated my own HIV status in the 11th sentence, 5th paragraph (not the 2nd sentence).

Since I have referred here frequently to my boyfriend / Civil Partner who has been with me for a number of years it would have been totally wrong of me not to have ensured that he was not confused with my "ex", from whom I "distanced myself" over 10 years ago, for reasons which I have gone into elsewhere at considerable length and which had nothing whatsoever to do with his HIV status.

You are clearly unable to count beyond your IQ, so I suggest you do everyone a favour, including yourself, and simply ignore me.

I know oral sex is not considered particularly risky but after a tooth extraction, I turned celibate for eight days. I have no problem with taxi drivers, bus drivers, and pilots being tested for their driving qualifications, architects and engineers for their knowledge of physics, surgeons for their skills with a scalpel, and sex workers for their lack of an STD. I remember back in the 60's in Thaipei, when prostitution was legal, boys and girls were tested monthly for STD's and I still got the clap (Hell, it was more like a standing ovation, especially when I had to pee.) But the fact that a system occasionally fails does not invalidate it. I wonder, with all the R&R troops coming in from Vietnam, how often would I have gotten it if the rule were not in place.

I wonder, with all the R&R troops coming in from Vietnam, how often would I have gotten it if the rule were not in place.

If you'd used a condom, none.

This post has hit its mark, Mark well done! Rather than being practical for a bar to test its staff for HIV this post has brought the reality of getting AIDS through unprotected sex. Years ago there was posters in every bar washroom, those seem to have disappeared
over the past few years. We all need to be reminded of the dangers of unprotected sex, not just for the Farang but for the boys as well. I would like to ask you Mark, what kind of education and how often do you and your staff discuss safe sex practices? Do the boys know they have the ability to say no to unsafe sex without any reprisal from the bar? ie. a unhappy customer. I understand that some boys will do anything for a buck, but letting them know risking their life is not worth it.

In a perfect world we would all be tested regularly, the staff of all the bars would be tested, but we know that is not going to happen. So for the safety of ourselves and the partners we have, safe protected sex is the only way to minimize the risk to all.

Again well done Mark, you have brought a subject back to life that we need to be vigilant about. I would hope this same discussion is being had with your staff as they are the ones most in control. If they say no and mean it we will all be the safer for it.

[Brad the Impala]

I wonder, with all the R&R troops coming in from Vietnam, how often would I have gotten it if the rule were not in place.

If you'd used a condom, none.

Condom use by gay men in the 70's was almost unheard of, as I expect BB is too young to remember. I remember going to a clinic in Patpong with a dose of clap around 1974. As it was the second time that I had had cause to go for treatment, the nurse gently wondered if I had thought of wearing condoms. The doctor however described the idea of wearing condoms as ridiculous. He said that it would take some of the pleasure out of it, like having a whiskey without having a cigarette!

One of the main sticking points is even if we wear condoms when having sex with a thai , i have noticed than when 2 thais-have anal sex , a lot of them do not bother too and f--k bb

[Brad the Impala]

One of the main sticking points is even if we wear condoms when having sex with a thai , i have noticed than when 2 thais-have anal sex , a lot of them do not bother too and f--k bb

"even if......"!! No doubt!

"I have noticed.........." You mean you regularly happened to be in the room at the same time?

[Diec]

Yes Brad, the boy's fuck themself silly without condoms. Hard for you to imagine huh?

According to a recent thread (http://www.gaytingtong.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5653&sid=4f2bc2a16c35464d3e7878ae61242bbe) on gay ting tong, Mark and KD have already been beaten to it by Happy Boys, apparently with no cases of HIV and one case of yaa-baa - an extraordinarily low number given the official estimates of both.

Re: Happy Boys does HIV Testing


But what will they do, if a boy IS HIV? Do they throw him out, fire him? What if it is against the will of the boys? Are they forced to do the test? Are the owner of the bar commited to a life time support? What if the bar close, what they do often? Any support then from the owner?

Similar proposed tests were the subject of a 6 page thread on SGF started by Mark (Krazy Dragon) where all of these questions were asked, but none were answered. To that list could be added further questions, such as what information would be passed on to past customers if a boy were found to be HIV positive.

Rather than being "impressive", gemein, in the absence of any answers to any of the above questions I would say it is extremely worrying, for both customers and boys, especially if any customers are stupid enough to think that they may be "safe" to practice "unsafe" sex.

The tests themselves are meaningless - any of those tested could be HIV positive even at the time of testing, if the virus was still at the incubation stage.

The details of the "checks" are minimal and ambiguous ("we check everybody about hiv, very expensive u know and now i can tell you nobody from my dancer in the bar have positiv, this is good to know") - were, for example, all the staff tested including waiters or only the "dancers"? Did some of the waiters prove positive? What about new or absent "dancers"?

How were the checks carried out? If blood samples were taken on the spot, this would have had to have been done over a number of days to ensure all staff were tested - did that happen? How strictly were the checks policed - was every member of staff identified and blood taken separately, or was there room for someone to have taken someone else's place (as I know for a fact happens in some restaurants/bars that need an HIV- certifcate as a condition of employment) ?

If the tests were carried out by directing the staff to go to a clinic themselves, be tested, and give the bar the certificate the results are even more open to doubt, as the ID checks, etc, done by any clinic or even hospitals are minimal. The 0%+ result alone should ring some warning bells, as should the low yaa-baa test results.

To say that the results of these tests as published, well intentioned though they may have been, raise more questions than they answer is putting it mildly.

[Impulse]

So do something already.The more testing the better. I dont care how insensitive it is for anyone already infected.If they are,they can get treated if they didnt know.And maybe it will shake some sense into them to only have safe sex with condoms. This disease is too serious to be treated lightly.Safe sex isnt working in Thailand. Good job Happy Boys.

[Dani69]

old thread let it dieeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Beachlover]

[quote=tdperhs]

I wonder, with all the R&R troops coming in from Vietnam, how often would I have gotten it if the rule were not in place.

If you'd used a condom, none.

Condom use by gay men in the 70's was almost unheard of, as I expect BB is too young to remember. I remember going to a clinic in Patpong with a dose of clap around 1974. As it was the second time that I had had cause to go for treatment, the nurse gently wondered if I had thought of wearing condoms. The doctor however described the idea of wearing condoms as ridiculous. He said that it would take some of the pleasure out of it, like having a whiskey without having a cigarette![/quote:vbmiw564]

Goodness... glad I wasn't around in the bad old days when everything was still speculative.

So do something already.The more testing the better. I dont care how insensitive it is for anyone already infected.If they are,they can get treated if they didnt know.And maybe it will shake some sense into them to only have safe sex with condoms. This disease is too serious to be treated lightly.Safe sex isnt working in Thailand. Good job Happy Boys.

What an ignorant.
If safe sex is not working in Thailand as you say, just play safe and go test yourself, it is a really really bad job Happy Boys, and for no reason.

So do something already.The more testing the better. I dont care how insensitive it is for anyone already infected.If they are,they can get treated if they didnt know.And maybe it will shake some sense into them to only have safe sex with condoms. This disease is too serious to be treated lightly.Safe sex isnt working in Thailand. Good job Happy Boys.

What an ignorant.
If safe sex is not working in Thailand as you say, just play safe and go test yourself, it is a really really bad job Happy Boys, and for no reason.

why is that? why shouldn't sex workers be tested?

[Impulse]

Im not worried about myself,I play safe.I want more education provided for the workers,many who dont know what their getting into.The status quo isnt working so well.At least with testing some will hopefully become more aware. Forty thousand new cases a year just in America.You better believe Im for more testing. Of course Happy Boys owner might not have had workers interest at heart.I understand the brew ha ha about this,Im just frustrated with all the new infections,not just in Thailand but world wide.

I can't wait to fuck a Happy Boy bareback, now that I'm sure it's totally safe. Oh, yeah -- they'll do it all right. Money talks.

Thank you, Happy Boys.

why is that? why shouldn't sex workers be tested?

Why should they be? If the customers are all practicing safe sex, there is no more justification than compulsorily testing anyone else. If they are not, then the customers are taking a risk regardless of whether the boys have been tested or not since they have no idea of the boy's current HIV status.

What exactly do you think will be achieved by testing them - or are you in favour of testing all those involved in the sex industry, including the customers?

[Surfcrest]

Selling this whole concept to the bar boys would be a job in itself.

If the current message to sex trade workers is тАЬto always use condoms with customersтАЭ, why would a sex trade worker want HIV testing? That would be a lot like assuming there are workers that arenтАЩt following the rules (and surely that is one of the rules of a Thai brothel). The last thing a Thai sex trade worker would want is to be screened out of their employment by way of an HIV test result.

Beach Bunny is right, Money TalksтАжmany will do it bb for the right amount. Worse still, there are plenty of farangs online looking for bb sex with Thais and visa versa to a certain extent, Xtube has plenty of examples of this already having happened.

Where it would be of interest to the Thai sex workers would be in their normal sexual relations outside their trade. How much safe sex happens outside of work for sex trade workers? Bar boys getting their girlfriends pregnant is a fairly common thing, which tells you something about condom use outside of work. How a Thai sex trade worker would become infected remains to be seen and certainly bar owners couldnтАЩt be held accountable for medical care / treatment if this is the case.

Without knowing where Thais are being infected, testing is a good idea. Be it a pre-condition of employment or ongoing employment. If someone believes their rights are being bypassed, they are certainly free to work elsewhere.

The boys are providing a service and should be fit for purpose.
Sex workers in most countries get tested regularly, as do porn workers, Thai boys should too.
They are more likely to pass on disease that their punters due to simple maths...
Likewise, all tourists who want to fuck around on holiday should be checked before we go.
Most won't
BB

[quote="dave_syd":kf0walwa]why is that? why shouldn't sex workers be tested?

Why should they be? If the customers are all practicing safe sex, there is no more justification than compulsorily testing anyone else. If they are not, then the customers are taking a risk regardless of whether the boys have been tested or not since they have no idea of the boy's current HIV status.

What exactly do you think will be achieved by testing them - or are you in favour of testing all those involved in the sex industry, including the customers?[/quote:kf0walwa]
I am thinking of it from the point of view of the 'boys' health.
all the experts in the field of sexual health recommend that all people who are sexually active with more than one partner should be tested regularly, at least once every 6-12 months, a sex worker even more often due to the volume and variety of partners. there is also more to worry about that just HIV, and some of the other STIs arent prevented by condom use. so safe sex isn't the solution to everything - and no, i am not even hinting that people shouldnt practice safe sex, prevention is much better than treatment, but testing is still required.
if somebody picks up an STI, the sooner they know about it and get treatment rather than waiting for symptoms the better the prognosis for the disease.

[kittyboy]

[quote="Gone Fishing":3t4es494][quote="dave_syd":3t4es494]why is that? why shouldn't sex workers be tested?

Why should they be? If the customers are all practicing safe sex, there is no more justification than compulsorily testing anyone else. If they are not, then the customers are taking a risk regardless of whether the boys have been tested or not since they have no idea of the boy's current HIV status.

What exactly do you think will be achieved by testing them - or are you in favour of testing all those involved in the sex industry, including the customers?[/quote:3t4es494]
I am thinking of it from the point of view of the 'boys' health.
all the experts in the field of sexual health recommend that all people who are sexually active with more than one partner should be tested regularly, at least once every 6-12 months, a sex worker even more often due to the volume and variety of partners. there is also more to worry about that just HIV, and some of the other STIs arent prevented by condom use. so safe sex isn't the solution to everything - and no, i am not even hinting that people shouldnt practice safe sex, prevention is much better than treatment, but testing is still required.
if somebody picks up an STI, the sooner they know about it and get treatment rather than waiting for symptoms the better the prognosis for the disease.[/quote:3t4es494]

As stated above the model in the US is that that everyone who is sexually active should get tested every 6-12 months for HIV. The logic is that if someone is tested and they are HIV positive they can make better informed decisions and choices. They can (and should) practice safer sex practices and be proactive about their own health. This model is predicated on the idea that people with information will do the right things....protect the health of themselves and others.

In my mind the question is does that model apply to thailand and the sex workers? Do the boys have the free will, the desire and the incentives to do the right things...protect the health of themselves and others? I honestly don't know as my experiences in thailand are as a tourist...However, people who work in the sex trade generally have less power than their customers and they may not be able to protect their own health and the health of others by using condoms. I tend to beleive that everyone should be tested for HIV on a regualr basis (including bar boys) however, if they are tested and the result is them losing their jobs then they have no incentives to get tested and lose their incomes.

And I do believe that everyone should practice safer sex by using condoms with people they are tricking with but the sad fact remains that many people don't and get infected...and safer sex is not a guarentee against HIV infection..it lessens the liklihood of infection it does not eliminate the possibility.

I tend to beleive that everyone should be tested for HIV on a regualr basis

"everyone"? Voluntarily or compulsory? How about for the 'flu, the common cold, TB, or any other contagious disease? And what about all those other nasty little things that can be passed on by heredity? Would they be identified by a badge, or a permanent tattoo on the forehead?

I seem to recall this being tried by a number of different regimes last century, with varying results.

[Brad the Impala]

I tend to beleive that everyone should be tested for HIV on a regualr basis

"everyone"? Voluntarily or compulsory? How about for the 'flu, the common cold, TB, or any other contagious disease? And what about all those other nasty little things that can be passed on by heredity? Would they be identified by a badge, or a permanent tattoo on the forehead?

I seem to recall this being tried by a number of different regimes last century, with varying results.

Sounds like someone is being deliberately obtuse with the intention of picking another fight.

I think that most sane people would agree that it's a good idea to have HIV tests on a regular basis. There was no suggestion in Kittyboy's post of coercion, and the subject of branding is Gone Fishing's contribution, which might have been more relevent if the discussion had been about testing for mad cow disease. Although that might be appropriate in some instances.

[Dani69]

Obviously Mark has no intention is testing his boys so can this thread be closed please getting a bit boring

[Beachlover]

[quote=kittyboy] I tend to beleive that everyone should be tested for HIV on a regualr basis

"everyone"? Voluntarily or compulsory? How about for the 'flu, the common cold, TB, or any other contagious disease? And what about all those other nasty little things that can be passed on by heredity? Would they be identified by a badge, or a permanent tattoo on the forehead?

I seem to recall this being tried by a number of different regimes last century, with varying results.

Sounds like someone is being deliberately obtuse with the intention of picking another fight.

I think that most sane people would agree that it's a good idea to have HIV tests on a regular basis. There was no suggestion in Kittyboy's post of coercion, and the subject of branding is Gone Fishing's contribution, which might have been more relevent if the discussion had been about testing for mad cow disease. Although that might be appropriate in some instances.[/quote:3mcusjlj]

Yup... making more stupid assumptions and exaggerations to spin another poster's idea into sounding excessive and extreme.

[kittyboy]

"everyone"? Voluntarily or compulsory? How about for the 'flu, the common cold, TB, or any other contagious disease? And what about all those other nasty little things that can be passed on by heredity? Would they be identified by a badge, or a permanent tattoo on the forehead?

I seem to recall this being tried by a number of different regimes last century, with varying results.[/quote]

Sounds like someone is being deliberately obtuse with the intention of picking another fight.

I think that most sane people would agree that it's a good idea to have HIV tests on a regular basis. There was no suggestion in Kittyboy's post of coercion, and the subject of branding is Gone Fishing's contribution, which might have been more relevent if the discussion had been about testing for mad cow disease. Although that might be appropriate in some instances.[/quote]

Yup... making more stupid assumptions and exaggerations to spin another poster's idea into sounding excessive and extreme.[/quote]

You guys pretty much captured the spirit of GF.

I recently moved overseas but prior to my move I volunteered one night a week as an HIV counselor. Over the last 12+ years I suspect I talked to several thousand people, gave them counseling and gave HIV test results both negative and positive results. My belief is that people who are sexually active should get tested anonomously every 3-6 months as a way of giving themselves information so they can make choices about their lives.

STD and HIV testing bar boys then advertising their STD and HIV status as some sort of marketing ploy seems very exploitive and a very bad bad idea.

Others have posted that this thread is past its shelf life and should be dropped..maybe.
I believe that HIV is one of the most important health issues facing gay men (worldwide) and as such I do not believe the topic has been exhausted nor will it be exhausted until a cure or vacine is produced.

Again I think getting tested is a personnel decision. Most educated adults realise now that knowing their status is the best way as starting the medications available if positive at the right time can, and in most cases keep the virus under control and give a normal lifespan. As with the sex trade workers, again education about the pro's and cons of knowing their status and how the available medications will keep them from getting sick far outway just testing them and perhaps scaring the life out of them if a positive result comes back.

Without going back through all the posts, what exactly would you do with any boys found to be positive Mark, would you dismiss them or inform customers where as they would be very unlikely to get an off?

It's a very delicate matter and should be considered with great caution, getting the HIV specialist in Pattaya to perhaps make a monthly visit to discus all the advantages of being tested might be a better idea..................

:hello1:

Yup... making more stupid assumptions and exaggerations to spin another poster's idea into sounding excessive and extreme.

The idea that "everyone should be tested for HIV on a regular basis" is no more necessary or justifiable than testing for any other disease, many of which are far more readily contagious without any sexual/intimate contact and equally fatal, so it is excessive and extreme.


...and, Brad, "people who are sexually active" (presumably with more than one partner, rather than strictly monogamous) is not the same thing as "everyone". I am sorry to disappoint you and BL, but any future "fights" will not take place on this forum as you have derailed sufficient threads with these repeated personal attacks already.

[kittyboy]

Yup... making more stupid assumptions and exaggerations to spin another poster's idea into sounding excessive and extreme.

The idea that "everyone should be tested for HIV on a regular basis" is no more necessary or justifiable than testing for any other disease, many of which are far more readily contagious without any sexual/intimate contact and equally fatal, so it is excessive and extreme.


...and, Brad, "people who are sexually active" (presumably with more than one partner, rather than strictly monogamous) is not the same thing as "everyone". I am sorry to disappoint you and BL, but any future "fights" will not take place on this forum as you have derailed sufficient threads with these repeated personal attacks already.



I said that I believe that everyone who is sexually active should get tested every 6-12 months for HIV.....and in a later post I said that I believe that everyone should be tested..Let me clarify that for the purposefully dense... I think everyone who is sexually active should be tested for HIV on a regular basis...That includes bar boys and their tricks.

I am basically parroting the American Center for Disease Control which recommends regular HIV testing for individuals sexually active....and yes yes....GF...I suspect you will say that you and your BF have a great monogomous relationship and don't need to get tested...great.

In the case of truely monogomous relationships there is no need to get tested after both partners have been tested and they both come back clean after 3 months of being together as a monogomous couple. The problem is that people stray and have affairs and one night stands..etc...A regular occurance for me would be to have a man or a woman come into get tested who was with a long term partner and they had had sex with someone else and now they were worried about STDs including HIV.

The stance of most public health organizations is that people who are sexually active should get tested on a regular basis...I am not sure GF if you disagree with the idea that people should have information about their HIV status and testing can give them information or if you are just being an ass and want to disagree to be disagreeable? I am not sure. In either case yours is the minority opinion about HIV...and

The idea that "everyone should be tested for HIV on a regular basis" is no more necessary or justifiable than testing for any other disease, many of which are far more readily contagious without any sexual/intimate contact and equally fatal ..the logic of that statement escapes me.

The "logic" of why some people insist on lying about what they said when it is clearly visible in the same thread is what "escapes me"!!! Now that really is "dense"!


I said that I believe that everyone who is sexually active should get tested every 6-12 months for HIV.....and in a later post I said that I believe that everyone should be tested

You actually said it the other way round - had you written as above I would not have commented.

In your first post on this thread (19 Oct) , you wrote (my underlining): "As stated above the model in the US is that that everyone who is sexually active should get tested every 6-12 months for HIV. The logic is that if someone is tested and they are HIV positive they can make better informed decisions and choices. .... In my mind the question is does that model apply to thailand and the sex workers? ..... I tend to beleive that everyone should be tested for HIV on a regualr basis (including bar boys) however, if they are tested and the result is them losing their jobs then they have no incentives to get tested and lose their incomes."

In your next post (20 Oct) you clarified this by saying: "My belief is that people who are sexually active should get tested anonomously every 3-6 months as a way of giving themselves information so they can make choices about their lives."


I am not sure GF if you disagree with the idea that people should have information about their HIV status and testing can give them information or if you are just being an ass and want to disagree to be disagreeable? I am not sure. In either case yours is the minority opinion about HIV

You would be sure if you re-read your own original post, or any of the many (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/gay-thailand/increases-hiv-infection-t16305.html?hilit=Aids#p163287) previous posts I have made on the subject of HIV (a subject you have curiously never made any comment on concerning transference, testing and treatment, which you should be very well informed on as "an HIV counselor" of "12+ years" who has counseled "several thousand people") and my position has always been clear and consistent, including on this (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/gay-thailand/boys-tested-for-hiv-t18308-60.html?hilit=test#p187383) thread. My opinion is that anyone who is sexually active with more than one partner (or if they are not 100% confident of their partner's sexual habits)should practice safe sex and get tested for HIV regularly (every 6 months - 12 months). I do not believe that HIV testing should be compulsory, and I do not believe that it is necessary for "everyone". I would be a little surprised if that is a "minority opinion" either in general or, more particularly, of those genuinely involved in the HIV field.


The idea that "everyone should be tested for HIV on a regular basis" is no more necessary or justifiable than testing for any other disease, many of which are far more readily contagious without any sexual/intimate contact and equally fatal ..the logic of that statement escapes me.

That hardly surprises me. The "logic" is that it would be a sensible precaution for "everyone" (at least if they could afford it) to be tested for those diseases they are most likely to contact; this could be a contagious disease such as TB, or heart disease, cholesterol testing, or cancer screening, or (if appropriate) HIV testing. The greater the chance of contact, the more "necessary or justfiable" the test is. Pretty simple, really.

[Brad the Impala]

I am sorry to disappoint you and BL, but any future "fights" will not take place on this forum as you have derailed sufficient threads with these repeated personal attacks already.

Didn't take long before you had to return to pick a new fight. Is it like vampires needing blood?

[Beachlover]

[quote="Gone Fishing":dyty1v72] I am sorry to disappoint you and BL, but any future "fights" will not take place on this forum as you have derailed sufficient threads with these repeated personal attacks already.

Didn't take long before you had to return to pick a new fight. Is it like vampires needing blood?[/quote:dyty1v72]

Yes, it's like dickheads needing to be dickheads...

[kittyboy]

[quote="Gone Fishing"]The "logic" of why some people insist on lying about what they said when it is clearly visible in the same thread is what "escapes me"!!! Now that really is "dense"!



Lying about what I wrote? ... The original thread is about testing bar boys and the context is Pattaya where there is a huge sex industry..my original post says everyone who is sexually active should get HIV tested...sorry you are being an asshole.

As I mentioned I was an HIV counselor on and off for over 12 years and over that time I gave HIV test and test results to lots of people. My position on HIV testing as I stated in several ways (which GF seems to say is inconsistent...sorry my position is consistent) and mirrors the Center for Disease Control in the US..HIV is easily preventable and people with information about their HIV status can and do change their behaviors such that they are less likely to get and or transmit HIV.

Here is your quote "The idea that "everyone should be tested for HIV on a regular basis" is no more necessary or justifiable than testing for any other disease, many of which are far more readily contagious without any sexual/intimate contact and equally fatal"

This thread and my original post were about people who are having sex so what you are saying is that even though HIV is easily avoidable and sexually active people do change their behavior with information that information is not important because there are other more contagious diseases which are fatal....

The logic of that statement escapes me. Why would you not want people to have information that can help them? Why would you not want bar boys and their tricks to know their HIV status..Your statement is just so wrong at so many levels...Oh you silly silly man...so wrong at so many levels...

[dab69]

carry on girls. no one here not involved is
actually READING all this, as usual...

In a perfect world there would be no virus's or illnesses but alais that is not the case. It is well know 'pervention is better than a cure' It is up to the induvidual to protect himself and also to have check ups if he or she so decides. Why should a complete stranger who only wants to indulge himself with your body insist on knowing if you have anything wrong with you?

:hello1:

...sorry you are being an asshole.

I think I prefer "asshole" to liar. The former is an opinion, while the latter is a fact.

[Beachlover]

"Popular opinion"

[kittyboy]

...sorry you are being an asshole.
I think I prefer "asshole" to liar. The former is an opinion, while the latter is a fact.


You forgot to say liar liar pants on fire hanging from the telephone wire...
Then I of course say..Oh yea...well I am rubber and you are glue..whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you.

That is the proper school boy taunt.....Nah Nah Nah..God you are an asshole.



On a more serious and less happy note. The Wall Street Journal recently published an article about the recent HIV Vaccine results from Thailand. I appears that the original results were not as significant as thought and the results may have been the result of random chance...or in statistics talk the results (the difference between the number of people who became HIV positive in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated groups) were not statistically significant. It is too bad. Use your condoms boys...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125603405226896225.html