| |
Chompoo
|
Maverick, your heart is in the right place and you're generally on the right track, but you go a bit too far.
Our actions do have an effect on others, but:
1) we have to balance our own selfish desires with how much that affects the planet (not just blindly choose a life of abstinence)
2) we are not responsible for the lives and choices of others and it is condescending to try to make those choices for them
There is an equation for figuring out the right choices in life, but it is an imperfect one.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 3:25 pm on Dec. 11, 2002
|
|
maverick2000
|
Chompoo (by the way, is that a reference to the color, the fruit, or neither?), your post definitely makes a lot fo sense. However, I believe that the true victim in being overly relativist are those who have an initial frame of reference that is socio-economically disadvantaged to begin with.
1. With respect to your first point, I agree that we have to balance our own selfish desires against how much that affects the planet. However, keep in mind the actual factors used in determining that balance (i.e. try and do the Posnerian "fuzzy math") and I believe that the balance tips strongly in one direction. No one is asking the human race to abstain completely from sex; all I said is that I think people should wear a condom when bedding a BG. It doesn't take a lot of effort to do so (and the opportunity cost, i.e. a better sensation, is not completely lost either as long as you plan on having trusting relationships outside of the BG context). That minimal effort is weighed against the potential harm to the planet. Well, the weight of that side of the scale should be determined by multiplying the chances (admittedly low) of contracting HIV and the potential impact that event would have if it occurs. But, given the great significance of that event--its effect on your health, your family, and the planet as a whole (let's not kid ourselves, HIV is an epidemic)--I think even when multiplied by an insignificant probability factor, the "wear a condom" side greatly outweighs "go bareback if you want" side. As a side note, part of the reason I feel the need to say something to those who take the "everyone else wears a condom, therefore I don't need to" stance is that 1) it's intrinsically unfair (you are benefiting from everyone else's sacrifice in not barebacking) and 2) it's intrinsically flawed (b/c if she's willing to do it with you, it stands to reason that she is more likely to have done it with someone else).
2. Again, I also agree that it sounds condescending and paternalistic to make any choice for another. However, that is more the case when you and the "other" are making those decisions with the same level of, to borrow terms from legal scholarship, "knowledge and sophistication" (not to be confused with sophistication in the etiquette-school sense but rather as reference to their experience/ability in making such decisions). One must keep in mind when trying to maintain an open-minded, relativist stance that BG's are not making the decision to go bareback under sufficiently free and knowledgable circumstances to justify making their consent applicable. More often than not, they are uneducated and poor to the extent that they either don't understand the consequences of their actions or MUST agree with condom-less sex despite that knowledge in order to survive/send money home. In other words, those who take advantage of her lack of HIV awareness or financially restricting situation are exploiting them the same way people who utilize children for sex or cheap labor are being exploitative (note: I am not equating BG's with children, but rather asserting that the same rationale applies).
Again, I apologize for the preachy, serious message. However, as someone who has been and continues to be active in HIV/AIDS awareness (including in Thailand), I feel somewhat obligated to share my thoughts/opinions. Just remember, while some of what I say is objective "fact", most of the important stuff is merely opinion/normative judgments (that I, nonetheless, feel strongly about).
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 4:52 pm on Dec. 11, 2002
|
|
Chompoo
|
Chompoo (by the way, is that a reference to the color, the fruit, or neither?)
I'm a fruit. Wait, that's a different thread.
1. The Equation
Many people actually have suggested that the way to combat STDs is to avoid sex outside of marriage. It's hard to argue with that simplistic logic, but when you look at it deeper we give up way too much enjoyment of life for this benefit (and abstinence outside of marriage causes too many other problems for our society, IMO).
There are real, tangible benefits to going bareback; the sensation, the spontaneity, the flexibility, the closeness, ... that possibly cancel out the harm you suggest.
Threat to Society
Assuming that I go BB once a week and get tested frequently I think the potential harm to the planet is small. I would have to become infected (of which there is a low probability in each instance) and I would have to transmit that to someone else before my positive test. I haven't run the numbers, but I think they are close enough so that some people may get enough out of the BB act to make it worthwhile.
Threat to Health
You have to factor in your current quality of life and your expected life span and weigh that against your quality of life if you turn up HIV+. For some, e.g. a Thai moto taxi driver, maybe enjoying life to fullest right now is worth it. The same argument can be used for taking certain drugs.
Being HIV+ is not a death sentence these days for most people in the western world.
Threat to Family
This is a huge variable. You need to factor out the psychological (and perhaps economic) harm from the physical harm. For guys with little close family this is not a factor. For guys who have kids and are active sexually with their wives this is a huge factor.
The Probability
The other big factor in the equation is the probability that the girl is HIV+ and how dangerous the particular act you want to perform is. As you've said you might feel safe going BB with your wife or girlfriend, but that is not because they have zero probability of being HIV+, just that it is sufficiently low. Likewise only a fool would have receptive BB anal sex with a beach trawling katoey at 3am. Presumably somewhere in between there are some partners who are sufficiently safe.
All that I've said applies only to the decision to go bareback if you are not HIV+. If you are HIV+ then going bareback never makes sense, except maybe with another HIV+, but it also means you probably should limit your covered sex too.
I've run the equation for myself and would never run the risk of going BB with a bar girl (or semi-pro), just as you have. But I'll let others do the math for themselves.
Don't even start on the "everyone else uses them, so I don't have to". Anyone who takes that idea seriously cannot be reasoned with, so it's not worth discussing.
2. Responsiblity for Others
You mix up responsibility and ethics in this paragraph. We can all agree that is not ethical to coerce a girl into going bareback, but perhaps we could quibble over what exactly we mean by coercion. I definitely do not include enticing with extra money (or even refusing to go with a girl unless she does BB) as "coercion."
I would encourage punters to share knowledge of safe-sex with the bargirls, but don't think it is our responsibility. If I think a young girl is a good risk and know that I am disease free, I have no problem getting a BBBJ. I'd like to tell her that while it's okay to do with me, she shouldn't offer the same to you guys, but sometimes detailed logical and analytical discussions are not warmly received by the BGs. Go figure.
I also have an odd philosophy of life that I don't care more about individuals or communities than they care about themselves. If you want to walk in front of my moving car (not in a crosswalk) don't expect me to slow down for you.
I don't think most people can make reasonable calculations regarding these issues (and certainly can't after a night of drinking with little brown hotties all around). Perhaps we'd be better off using hyperbole to scare them off (as is often done with many borderline issues such as sex and drugs), but those of us with any intelligence should admit to ourselves that we are just lying to the public.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 6:07 pm on Dec. 11, 2002
|
|
Deleted Member
|
It is very simple. Always use a good quality condom recommended for the activity and the lube recommended. Once you have more than one partner you have to take the precaution with all of them.
There are some STDs which are not very visible in men but can be devastating for women.
If you do anal, put on two condoms or use one which is very reliable. Do not switch orifices with the same condom.
Personally, I do not like to do BJ with condoms; it is a small risk, possibly driving a car in New York, Boston or for that matter riding a motorcycle in Thailand!
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 6:44 pm on Dec. 11, 2002
|
|
maverick2000
|
Chompoo, with the respect to the first point, I think we're on the same page (although I might disagree with a couple of things). ÝI think an important point to note is that, while you and I have reached the same conclusion by weighing some of those factors we mentioned for ourselves, some people will arrive at a different answer even though they share the same weight of factors (i.e. it's not "how much their life will be affected" value that's different, but rather the calculus employed afterwards). ÝAnd I think that forcing people to think about it is only in their best interest (even if, in the end, they choose to go through with it). ÝFurthermore, if they can find a BG who is willing to do it and is similarly knowledgable about how to calculate those risks for herself, and she *freely* chooses it, more power to both of them.
With respect to the second part of the discussion, I was in fact talking about responsibility and not ethics. ÝI was not trying to address whether or not it is ethical to coerce a BG into barebacking it, but rather I was trying to point out why it is that "we" (referring to the general group on this board who are, relative to BG's, wealthier and better educated) have a responsibility not to take advantage of a BG's lack of information/economically-associated choices to our benefit. ÝAgain, I acknowledge that it's paternalistic. ÝBut where there is an obvious lack of information and economically-viable options as is the case in BG's, I would contend that we have a duty not to exploit that disadvantaged position so that we can get a little better feeling (from a girl that's already doing her best to make you feel good). ÝIt doesn't matter if she really WANTS to or not. ÝIt's not about desire. It's not about coersion. ÝI'm talking about a duty of responsibility not to have condom-less sex even where the BG genuinely desires it, i.e. she is "factually consenting" (as it's referred to in criminal law).
Think about the following examples:
1) a 13 year old girl who wants to have sex
2) a woman decides to have sex while drunk
3) a woman who is told that, if she doesn't have sex with him, he'll seriously injure a member of her family
4) a woman who chooses to have sex b/c she thinks that, if she doesn't, the guy will think less of her
5) a woman in a medical examination who thinks the doctor is inserting a medical instrument into her vagina but who in fact is inserting his penis
6) a woman who is having sex with a guy she thinks is her husband but how in fact is the guy's twin brother pretending to be the husband
7) a woman who is having sex with a guy who promised that he was rich and would marry her but who, in fact, is not rich and has no intention of marrying her
8) an 18 year old that is mentally handicapped but who really wants to have sex
In all of those examples, you have a woman who factually consents to an activity, i.e. she chooses it for herself over the alternatives. ÝBut the more important question is, in what hypotheticals is that factual consent negated because of the circumstances which caused that choice (i.e. where she lacks sufficient knowledge, freedom, etc. to make that decision for herself)?
The real question is, what do we think should make the list of circumstances that negate a woman's factual consent? ÝThere are some circumstances that no jurisdiction agrees with (e.g. sex chosen as an alternative to being stabbed in the throat). ÝMost countries agree that we don't care if 9 year olds want to have sex with adult men or not. ÝIf a guy has sex with a little girl, he goes to jail. ÝDo we have a duty to protect kids? ÝI think so. ÝDo we have a duty to protect drunk girls? ÝI'm not sure. ÝIt probably depends on the circumstances. ÝDo we have a duty to protect the mentally incompetent? I think so (but I don't want to be the person who keeps them from experiencing sex). Do we have a duty to protect socio-economically disadvantaged people generally? ÝI think so, others might not.
Applying this to the barebacking BG example, the question is, do we think that where a BG factually consents to bareback sex but where she either doesn't understant the consequences of that decision or where she understands but doesn't have a choice (b/c if she says "No", you'll wait for a girl that says "Yes", she won't have any money to send home, and her little sister will die of starvation) that we should hold that consent as valid? ÝI would say "no." ÝBut, if a BG knows all about HIV, has enough money/customers to say "no" to bareback requests and still make a living, then I would say let her determine the cost/value of an increased risk of HIV for herself. ÝIf she doesn't have the requisite knowledge/freedom, and I know this, and I can do something about.....I feel a duty not to confront her with that difficult and unfair set of choices.
Now I'm beating a dead horse. ÝAfter all is said, the only place I think you and I differ is the duty we feel towards others. ÝWhen someone walks in front of my car, I understand that he/she may have good reason to make that choice (and want to get run over). ÝOn the other hand, I also understand that his/her choice to walk in front of my car may not be made under sufficiently free/knowledgable circumstances that I would want to indulge their "choice" knowingly myself. (e.g., what if it turns out that she walked into the street b/c she mistakenly thought getting hit by a car was good for her or if she knew it would hurt her but she had to in order to feed her little brother). ÝIn that sense, I feel as if I have a responsibilty not to run them over if I suspect that the choice was not made freely and with sufficient knowledge.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 7:21 pm on Dec. 11, 2002
|
|
Chompoo
|
If you absolutely know that a person is making a very bad decision, you are ethically obligated not to take advantage of that. I.e. if a guy is HIV+ he can not go around asking girls to go bareback without informing the girls of that fact. He can't use the fact that they did not ask whether he was HIV+ as an excuse.
The particular cases we're talking about, though, are not at all clear cut. I can't know the complicated thought process of every person I come across and I can only hope to be straight with them and let them make their own decisions. If you think along those lines, you might also ask whether you corrupt a waitress by giving her too big a tip! 
How do you know in each case you are exploting them by asking them to go bareback? Again, the logical extension would be that I have to judge each bargirl and figure out if prostitution is her best option in life before I have any kind of sex with her.
Some of your "consent" examples are a bit contrived as they involve clear fraud and deception. In some cases you have to weigh the ignorance of the woman vs. the damage caused.
1) a 13 year old girl who wants to have sex
Most importantly this is illegal, so I would never do it. But morally and ethically, I don't believe there is one particular age where a person is qualified to give consent. As age increases the probability of real consent increases, but there is no cut-off point (not 14, not 18, not even 21).
2) a woman decides to have sex while drunk
This is a judgement call. Taking advantage of a girl who will be really damaged by this action (perhaps a virgin, perhaps very religious, ...) is wrong. In many cases it's just fine and I don't want to make other people's choices for them if I don't have to.
3) a woman who is told that, if she doesn't have sex with him, he'll seriously injure a member of her family
Trivial case. This is not only unethical, but violates several laws in almost every nation.
4) a woman who chooses to have sex b/c she thinks that, if she doesn't, the guy will think less of her
That's her choice. It's not coercion unless the guy is putting a lot of pressure on her (like most high school boys do). I'm not going to psychoanalyze every girl to find her true motives.
5) a woman in a medical examination who thinks the doctor is inserting a medical instrument into her vagina but who in fact is inserting his penis
Clearly fraud, malpractice, assault, rape, ....
6) a woman who is having sex with a guy she thinks is her husband but how in fact is the guy's twin brother pretending to be the husband
This is questionable, it depends on the people involved and the situation. It's clearly wrong to lead the woman on (e.g. for the twin to sneak into her room). Even if the woman walks into the wrong room and starts humping the twin, he should inform her of her mistake as the consequences are too great.
7) a woman who is having sex with a guy who promised that he was rich and would marry her but who, in fact, is not rich and has no intention of marrying her
If a woman happens to assume I'm rich and sleeps with me because of that, I feel no moral obligation to inform her otherwise; som num na. Deliberately lying to her or misleading her into thinking that is, of course, wrong.
8) an 18 year old that is mentally handicapped but who really wants to have sex
Another judgement call. If it's legal, I don't have a problem with it. Certainly guys could take advantage of her and abuse her, but I wouldn't take away her right to have sex. This is why it's so hard (and somewhat arbitrary) to have an official age-of-consent. Some 17 year olds are more prepared for sex than many 20 year olds.
Back to bareback sex. If the guy chooses not to go with a girl because she doesn't provide the service he wants, then that is life. He is under no obligation to compromise his options for her. You can send her starving sister the money yourself if you feel that badly for her.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 8:10 pm on Dec. 11, 2002
|
|
maverick2000
|
Champoo, either you're a lawyer or you have one of the sharpest, innate legal minds I have ever come across. It's funny, I didn't give those examples in order to get individual answers--they were meant to represent a range from places we all agree there's a duty to protect to the circumstances where inevitably one has to make a normative judgment based on his/her own set of morals, ethics, priorities, etc. However, what you said about each of those examples are the exact issues that legal scholars talk about when addressing those types of hypotheticals.
I agree with everything you said. The only thing I would add (which I think you might disagree with), is that for almost every BG, going bareback is a very bad decision and, therefore, we shouldn't confront any of them with that choice. There aren't many BG's out there that, knowing all the information and not being in desperate need for the money, would freely choose to increase their chances of contracting. 99% of these girls are BG's out of necessity; and, all things considered, I think it's a pretty decent way for them to make a living (if people treat them w/ the consideration and respect that they deserve). But, if it reverts to the days where she has to go bareback or have no business (which is what will happen if people start requiring it--it's just the way markets work), that would be a bad thing.
Great discussion by the way (even if it is a little too serious).
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 8:47 pm on Dec. 11, 2002
|
|
Chompoo
|
I'm not a lawyer, I'm just an amateur asshole.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 8:52 pm on Dec. 11, 2002
|
|
nokna
|
lost me a long time ago.
but i am only a simple lad.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 1:23 am on Dec. 12, 2002
|
|
X
|
Chompoo & Maverick.... thank you both, I thoroughly enjoyed your exchange! ÝGave me lots of new angles to ponder.
Maverick... PLEASE don't take this as an insult as I absolutely don't mean it as an insult... but I DO find your stance quite condescending/patronising. (sorry I don't have a more polite word).
If I understand this correctly, Ýthe jist of your arguement boils down to being able to give "informed consent"... and if you aren't well versed on STDs and HIV and are not able to calculate the risk factors then you can't give informed consent. But that point is realtive to what one individual considers "well versed and capable of calculating the risks".
I can follow that to a certain extent... but... I know plenty of women here in the west that are absolutely ignorant on this matter. BUT I do think they know enough to give informed consent. ÝIt is their choice not to learn or not to heed the advice given.
Why I feel your arguement is slightly condescending is... I feel it says if the women concerned is not as well read on the risks of HIV as yourself, and if she can't do the maths as well as you... then she isn't capable of giving consent.
Your scenario (based on informed consent) would include a big chunk of my female friends, family and collegues. ÝYes, I know there are no financial burdens placed on them... and that has to figure into the equation... but in the same way it has to figure in that many Thai BG's can and do have the means to learn about the risks of STDs and make an informed decision.
I really don't like using the words "condescending and patronising" and I really hope you don't feel insulted... I just can't think of less inflamatory words.
Either way... nice exchange guys! 
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 5:48 am on Dec. 12, 2002
|
|
| |
|
