Condom advice: yours or hers?

[Condom advice: yours or hers?]

I'm mostly a bottom. I had a bad experience with LB and her local condom: it broke. So now I offer them one of mine. The trouble is, like Cinderella and the magic shoe, you don't know which one fits. I've heard that tight condoms paradoxically have a tendency to slip off. I could off course get a range of sizes and present my lady with them, asking her to chose the right one. In an ideal world, she'd know which one fit her best ( the least chance coming off or breaking) and she'd carry them. But good condoms aren't especially cheap, or the LB may not be that experienced.

 

How do you wise BMs chose the best fitting condom for your ladies to wear while they're doing you?

 

[Train travel in Thailand]

i did Bangkok to Hua Hin 3rd class . never again :No No Tut Tut:

I once got on a 7 hour train ride, 3rd class standing. They were the only tickets available, so we took them. The ticket was something like 28B (from Bangkok to Pratchuap). But no problem: we spent the whole time in the restaurant car--great seats, very pleasant drinking beer and watching the scenery float by.

[Condoms and oils, a dangerous mix.]

There's apparently silicon based lube, which stays slippery and doesn't damage condoms. I'll look for it in pharmacies.

 

What I've gathered so far (these aren't my opinions, and don't know how many of these are available in LOS):

 

"Popular silicon-based lubes include:

Wet Platinum: By the makers of Wet, naturally, this is high quality and very long-lasting.

Eros Bodyglide: It's almost identical to Wet Platinum, but more expensive.

ID Millennium: ID Millennium is a good lube, but not quite as smooth as Eros or Wet Platinum. It's still a good choice, however.

Play Tingling silicone-based lubricant, made by Durex. It provides a tingling sensation and has a minty scent and taste." (Hmmm)

[Condoms and oils, a dangerous mix.]

Forgive me if you all know this like scripture. I did a site search (using the search engine) and couldn't find this topic discussed, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

As far as sex lubricants go, oils are very dangerous--for instance like Johnson & Johnson Baby Oil (a mineral oil), or even something as innocuous as coconut oil. The oils are a bit deceptive too, because they often don't break the condom outright, but nonetheless eat little microscopic holes in the latex, which are invisible to the eye but big enough for STDs, including AIDS to easily pass through.

 

Water based lubricants are the way to go, though I hate them because they always dry out so quickly (though you can make them slippery again be adding water).

 

I once tested the above facts (to see how bad the situation about was) with two condoms: one I'd lubed with water based lube and the other with J&J baby oil. I let them sit for about 20 minutes on my bureau then tried to break each by stretching them. I couldn't break the water lube, by the baby oil broke easily with just mild stretching. (I was demonstrating this for a Cambodian GG, who didn't believe me)

 

I once saw a site that did systematic testing of this sort (unfortunately I can't locate it) and determined that for many oils you only have perhaps 5 minutes before holes develop in the condom. Much more time was needed for breakage but only 5 minutes or so to catch an STD.

 

All this is bad news for me. I love J&J baby oil to lube up my baby.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#Materials

 

This article says it's more like 1 minute with some lubes...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010782489900188

[Hiv In Ladyboy Scene]

Well, I hope you're all right. (and if you are, it's a relief off my mind). I'll keep digging though, since I read this in two separate places and my doctor confirmed it. If I find anything authoritative I'll repost since it's a matter that affects all of us. Thanks for your replies.

 

A little cartoon to lighten the mood...

 

[Hiv In Ladyboy Scene]

Totally agree ,,, in regards to the flip of the coin ,,, regardless of the number of spins and what the previous spins were the odds still stay at 50% ,,, of course after spinning/tossing 10 heads in a row it becomes more likely tails will come up , but in fact the odds are still 50% ,

 

There is a misunderstanding here about the principles of probability theory. If the odds are 100 to 1 they are 100 to 1 every time. The odds don't change with each subsequent act. You could be infected the 1st time, the 50th time, the 100th time. It just means that if you engage in the act 100 times you are likely to be infected once.

 

If you are concerned with the risk of HIV, it's very simple. Use condoms for anal sex every time. Oral sex is a risk for other STDs, but it is not a risk for HIV.

I'll have to dig up the article I read this in. It was quite a while ago. If I can find it, I link it here. I don't completely understand it, but this is how I think it goes:

 

There is a difference between the probability of a single event vs. the probability of a given series of that same event. In your example, for instance, the probability that you'd get infected the very first time is 1 in a 100. But the probability that you'd get infected after having escaped it 99 times in a row (if that happened) for example, would be much greater than 1 in 100. On the 100th time, the one-time odds may still be 100 to 1, but the series probability of infection by then is very high.

 

Another example, the coin toss again. If you flip 10 heads in a row, and you know that over time the tosses will average out 50/50, you know that there's a better than average chance that after 10 heads, a tail becomes much more likely than a head (even though the *one time* event probability of the next toss is still 50/50). The series average has to eventually be 50/50 and the series up to this point has favored heads, making the *series probability* of a tails much more likely at this point. The one-time probability is overruled by the series probability, which strongly favors a tail.

 

So in this way, a long string of good luck at the STD gambling tables make it increasingly more likely that one will get an STD, simply by probability: the series odds of getting an infection at this point have become much greater than the one-time odds.

[Hiv In Ladyboy Scene]

I agree for moments pleasure a lifetime of regret. That's the real odds. Not worth the risk, always play safe

 

"A night with Venus and a lifetime of Mercury" was what they said in Victorian England. Mercury was the treatment for syphilis.

[Hiv In Ladyboy Scene]

I agree with all of that except for your odds . If the odds were halved every time you play i would have won lotto a long time ago .

 

Be safe all

But I think that's the way (the odds thing) works. Think of tossing a coin: When you start out, the chance of getting "tails" is 50% (or 1/2). If you got "heads" on the first toss, the chance of getting tails on the second toss isn't 50/50. It's 75/25 (3/4). If you get heads on the second toss, the odds become even more likely, 7/8 that you'll get tails on the third toss, and so on. This is how a doctor explained STD risks to me. He may be full of shit, but it makes sense. The word for this, BTW is "cumulative probability".

 

Of course all these probabilities assume that your partner already has the STD, and give the odds that you'll catch it. In fact, the odds that your partner has, say HIV, are perhaps 10 or 15% in Thailand (given that he's a male-to-male sex worker). So say the risk of drawing such a partner is 1/10. If you do receptive anal intercourse with him(at, say, a risk of 1/100), then your real risk is 1/10 * 1/100 == 1/1000. Add the use of a condom, which has a 10% risk of malfunction, and the odds become 1/10 * 1/100 * 1/10 == 1/10000.

 

(PS: the condom risk is for all people using all types of condoms. If you use good condoms correctly and the risk goes down accordingly)

[Hiv In Ladyboy Scene]

No substitute for good information...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aids#Transmission

 

A lot of times it's a trade off between the risk of infection and the enjoyment of the act. You can wrap yourself in latex, head to foot and be very safe, but why even bother. You won't have any fun. Some things are very dangerous to do without a rubber, like receptive anal sex, and somethings aren't, like insertive oral sex, or even receptive oral sex. So it's good to know what sex acts carry the most danger and plan accordingly. And feel more comfortable about taking a fairly insignificant risk with things that are a lot more fun to do without a rubber. The chart above breaks it down.

 

In practice, no one is going to be completely safe all the time, so it's good to know where you're the most vulnerable.

 

It goes without saying that you should do what you're most comfortable doing, and I'm not trying to advocate unsafe sex. But I think people feel the most comfortable when they know beforehand the risks that they'll be taking and can plan accordingly.

 

...

One thing worth mentioning. By the laws of probability, your odds increase every time you "play the game" (do a particular sex act). So if you have a 1/100 chance the first time you try something, you'll have a 1/50 chance the second time, 1/25 the third time, etc. The odds listed in the Wikipedia article are the "starting odds". Condoms cut down the unprotected risk to about 1/10 of what it would be, because condoms aren't perfect: they break, slip off, aren't used correctly...so there's a probability for them too (and I think the Wikipedia article may mention that).

 

This is what I've learned over the years. It may not be completely correct. If not, please correct me for the general good.

---

 

PS: Another forum member linked to a San Francisco STD clinic, which is another great source of information, and worth comparing side-by-side to the Wikipedia table above.