Do you see WG's with bareback pics in their private galleries as increased risk?

[Turtle Z]

Despite some WG's claiming they don't do bareback, a minority carry bareback pics in their private gallery, sometimes claiming they're with a partner or ex, or sometimes not bothering to explain. I've always avoided these WG's on the simple basis that sensible WG's know they will encourage BB requests by carrying  these pics. Perhaps they want to encourage these requests. Either way, I've always seen them as increased risk and so avoid.  I've posted this to open it up to the wider membership as members on another thread don't seem to see this as an increased risk. Be interested in others views on this.

[smiths]

Despite some WG's claiming they don't do bareback, a minority carry bareback pics in their private gallery, sometimes claiming they're with a partner or ex, or sometimes not bothering to explain. I've always avoided these WG's on the simple basis that sensible WG's know they will encourage BB requests by carrying  these pics. Perhaps they want to encourage these requests. Either way, I've always seen them as increased risk and so avoid.  I've posted this to open it up to the wider membership as members on another thread don't seem to see this as an increased risk. Be interested in others views on this.

I don't waste my money paying for PG pics as I wouldn't give one penny to A/W, a site run by low lifes directly, so I wouldn't know if a WG had such pics or not.

I see no point is using such pics if a WG isn't advertising she is offering BB though.

[hendrix]

Nah, I don't care. Every girl is doing bb with somebody so I don't see what difference it makes if they publish pics of them doing so with Sergie, bf or punter. Who the hell knows what actually goes on in anything but their own punt?

[Blackpool Rock]

Tough one this as i've got a foot in both camps.
It has put me off on some occasions but as others have said the girl is almost certainly barebacking her BF / Pimp and how many other girls are they in turn barebacking?
On the other hand I agree that the bug hunters are more likely to see it as an opportunity to book a girl with bareback photos, even if it's not openly on offer who know until you get there and flash extra notes in her face?

[Playtimeisfun]

Despite some WG's claiming they don't do bareback, a minority carry bareback pics in their private gallery, sometimes claiming they're with a partner or ex, or sometimes not bothering to explain. I've always avoided these WG's on the simple basis that sensible WG's know they will encourage BB requests by carrying  these pics. Perhaps they want to encourage these requests. Either way, I've always seen them as increased risk and so avoid.  I've posted this to open it up to the wider membership as members on another thread don't seem to see this as an increased risk. Be interested in others views on this.

 Again you're scaring me Turtle...  What is your obsession with this? You appear to be trying to validate your post on myself. This is a little obsessive and unhealthy

[Turtle Z]

Again you're scaring me Turtle...  What is your obsession with this? You appear to be trying to validate your post on myself. This is a little obsessive and unhealthy

Stop being a knob, you're two posts in and a question relating to bareback risk is "scaring you". Perhaps you'd be more comfortable on mumsnet. I think the bigger question is with regard to what you are trying to validate. 

[Turtle Z]

Again you're scaring me Turtle...  What is your obsession with this? You appear to be trying to validate your post on myself. This is a little obsessive and unhealthy

Ah, now it becomes clear. This was posted by the prossie who was carrying the bareback pics in her private gallery. 

[Malvolio]

I'd say not as you have no idea what the WG does when you're not in the room. 

[Kriss]

I have always assumed that some WGs have (and perhaps still do) make porno flicks and that's where the BB photos come from. Would have to be mental to go BB with random punters.

[NIK]

Seeing pics of them being fucked whether bb or protected would be enough to put me off anyway. Same with photos of them sucking cocks or close ups of fannies or arseholes.   

[Jimmyredcab]

Seeing pics of them being fucked whether bb or protected would be enough to put me off anyway. Same with photos of them sucking cocks or close ups of fannies or arseholes.   

When I pay for a private gallery it is in the hope of seeing a face picture ------------ I don't want to see her being fucked --- bareback or covered. 

[TemplarLord]

I am sorry but am I being thick here. If a person has sex with another person and doesn't use a condom, and then has sex with you and does use a condom. Then other people should avoid having sex with you & everybody you have had sex with incase you get an STD.

Am I right about that? And doesn't that statement cover everybody on this forum. I would assume most punters, who have partners, have unprotected sex with their partner. Just because they do, doesn't mean everyone should avoid everyone else. Just because (a) has unprotected sex with (b) doesn't mean that (c) & (d) should avoid (a). However if all of them had unprotected sex with each other I'd agree.

The OP IMHO opinion is off his rocker. In another post on this forum, he was vehement in his uproar that a woman could have unprotected sex with her partner, & sell herself and have protected sex with everyone else, but as a Punter he can have unprotected sex with his partner & protected sex with any other WG.

As I said on that post you need to apologise to the Lady. You are deluded that one rule for you & another for everyone else is going to work. Everybody has sex. So long as you protect yourself what's the problem.
   

[claretandblue]

Nah, I don't care. Every girl is doing bb with somebody so I don't see what difference it makes if they publish pics of them doing so with Sergie, bf or punter. Who the hell knows what actually goes on in anything but their own punt?

+1 this is the only logical conclusion, I always cover up and avoid those that advertise bareback, that's all we as punters can do

[Turtle Z]

Know 'the lady' do you? Did she ask you to post or did you volunteer to do her dirty laundry on her behalf?

Hidden Image/Members Only

I am sorry but am I being thick here. If a person has sex with another person and doesn't use a condom, and then has sex with you and does use a condom. Then other people should avoid having sex with you & everybody you have had sex with incase you get an STD.

Yes, as you said, you are being a bit thick. Now please try and focus on the point being made, which is simply this... Do others think there is an increased risk when WG's carry BB images in their galleries? I think any girl that does this is encouraging BB requests so I avoid them.

I would assume most punters, who have partners, have unprotected sex with their partner. Just because they do, doesn't mean everyone should avoid everyone else.

Fuck me are you really this naive...  this is a simple numbers game and risk analysis again. Yes, most of us probably have BB sex with wives, girlfriends or partners but most wouldn't want to risk BB with a WG with the resultant risk of spreading disease to wives and partners.

The OP IMHO opinion is off his rocker. In another post on this forum, he was vehement in his uproar that a woman could have unprotected sex with her partner, & sell herself and have protected sex with everyone else, but as a Punter he can have unprotected sex with his partner & protected sex with any other WG.

Are you really this fucking dumb? I was neither vehement or in an uproar, and neither did I make any point about your fair maiden "having unprotected sex with her partner, & sell herself and have protected sex with everyone else."   Did you read my post before 'P' asked you to post this shite? The point I made is that I accept that we all, WG's included, probably have unprotected sex in our private life. However, I believe that if it's in their galleries then its not really their 'private life' and that they're encouraging requests for bareback. If I have BB sex with a partner I won't put pictures of it in my AW profile because I know full well that most reasonable WG's would refuse to see me on seeing bareback pictures.

As I said on that post you need to apologise to the Lady. You are deluded that one rule for you & another for everyone else is going to work. Everybody has sex. So long as you protect yourself what's the problem.

I pointed out that she was carrying bareback pics in her gallery and wouldn't see her on that basis and you think she deserves an apology. You're the one thats fucking deluded!          

[Brazilian Martian]

I am sorry but am I being thick here. If a person has sex with another person and doesn't use a condom, and then has sex with you and does use a condom. Then other people should avoid having sex with you & everybody you have had sex with incase you get an STD.

Am I right about that? And doesn't that statement cover everybody on this forum. I would assume most punters, who have partners, have unprotected sex with their partner. Just because they do, doesn't mean everyone should avoid everyone else. Just because (a) has unprotected sex with (b) doesn't mean that (c) & (d) should avoid (a). However if all of them had unprotected sex with each other I'd agree.

The OP IMHO opinion is off his rocker. In another post on this forum, he was vehement in his uproar that a woman could have unprotected sex with her partner, & sell herself and have protected sex with everyone else, but as a Punter he can have unprotected sex with his partner & protected sex with any other WG.

As I said on that post you need to apologise to the Lady. You are deluded that one rule for you & another for everyone else is going to work. Everybody has sex. So long as you protect yourself what's the problem.
 

The op has contributed more to this forum then you have so far and you do come across as a white knight imho

[TemplarLord]

I maybe naïve, as you put it. But I have nothing to do with the Lady in question. I haven't been in communication with her. All I have done is read your posts on here, checked out her profile, and responded with my own personal point of view.
When I read your response to the Original Poster, & then to the Lady herself, in my view in an aggressive tone, I felt for her. Granted from your stand point, of never seeing someone who advertising BB on their profile & therefore by your standards are promoting it, I suppose one might feel aggrieved. But even still the tone of your rant was quite over the top. That is my point.

But since this forum is about informing others to the quality of WG's & who to see, & therefore affecting their chance of making a living, I felt someone at least should be standing up for her. She doesn't advertise BB, yes she may have old photos in her PG which she explained about. But that doesn't seem to matter to you. It's as if as she doesn't matter to you, even though by your post you may have affected her chance of seeing clients. You seem only concerned for yourself & not about other people. Granted there are many fake profiles on AW, with criminals making money, but I don't think so in this case.

Fine you don't see WG's who BB, great good for you. Fine you proclaim to all & sundry warning others who do. Just do it not in a such aggressive way is all I am saying.   

[Turtle Z]

I maybe naïve, as you put it. But I have nothing to do with the Lady in question. I haven't been in communication with her. All I have done is read your posts on here, checked out her profile, and responded with my own personal point of view.
When I read your response to the Original Poster, & then to the Lady herself, in my view in an aggressive tone, I felt for her. Granted from your stand point, of never seeing someone who advertising BB on their profile & therefore by your standards are promoting it, I suppose one might feel aggrieved. But even still the tone of your rant was quite over the top. That is my point.

But since this forum is about informing others to the quality of WG's & who to see, & therefore affecting their chance of making a living, I felt someone at least should be standing up for her. She doesn't advertise BB, yes she may have old photos in her PG which she explained about. But that doesn't seem to matter to you. It's as if as she doesn't matter to you, even though by your post you may have affected her chance of seeing clients. You seem only concerned for yourself & not about other people. Granted there are many fake profiles on AW, with criminals making money, but I don't think so in this case.

Fine you don't see WG's who BB, great good for you. Fine you proclaim to all & sundry warning others who do. Just do it not in a such aggressive way is all I am saying.

No, don't try and downplay the shite you've written. It was a perfectly reasonable discussion about risk management and the only thing pointed out was that the 'lady' was carrying BB pics in her gallery. It was her who intervened in an aggressive manner and I responded in kind but white knights like yourself choose to see only what you want to see. It was your white knighting rant that was over the top. Moreover, you've contributed virtually fuck all to this forum and are already white knighting and suggesting that established punters follow your rules rather than the rules of this site. If I am being 'aggressive' or acting outside the rules of this forum then admin will slap my wrist or ban me. I don't need white knights like you giving me site etiquette tips!

[smiths]

I maybe naïve, as you put it. But I have nothing to do with the Lady in question. I haven't been in communication with her. All I have done is read your posts on here, checked out her profile, and responded with my own personal point of view.
When I read your response to the Original Poster, & then to the Lady herself, in my view in an aggressive tone, I felt for her. Granted from your stand point, of never seeing someone who advertising BB on their profile & therefore by your standards are promoting it, I suppose one might feel aggrieved. But even still the tone of your rant was quite over the top. That is my point.

But since this forum is about informing others to the quality of WG's & who to see, & therefore affecting their chance of making a living, I felt someone at least should be standing up for her. She doesn't advertise BB, yes she may have old photos in her PG which she explained about. But that doesn't seem to matter to you. It's as if as she doesn't matter to you, even though by your post you may have affected her chance of seeing clients. You seem only concerned for yourself & not about other people. Granted there are many fake profiles on AW, with criminals making money, but I don't think so in this case.

Fine you don't see WG's who BB, great good for you. Fine you proclaim to all & sundry warning others who do. Just do it not in a such aggressive way is all I am saying.

UKP IS a punters forum, not for white knights to stand up for WGs as you put it, you can post on UKE and do that all day long as you please.

[TemplarLord]

I am not a White Knight. I am just a bloke with a point of view, just like everyone else, same as you. You posted your point of view, so did I. I am not trying to change anyone's mind or Modus Operandi.
I am purely typing what I think, just like everyone else. If I am banned for that so be it.

[Jim Panzee]

, you can post on UKE and do that all day long as you please.

Fluffy as fuck that place isn't it.One of the threads on there is titled "Gifts"  

Are you allowed to say the word "Prostitute" on there ?

[Turtle Z]

I am not a White Knight. I am just a bloke with a point of view, just like everyone else, same as you. You posted your point of view, so did I.

No, you posted the prossies point of view and thats why you're a white knight!

[TemplarLord]

So I am a White Knight because I can show empathy for someone I have never met, nor likely will, just because I read a situation & make a decision and make a point of view.
Well if it makes you feel better about yourself go ahead & put a label on me based on your point of view.

[Turtle Z]

So I am a White Knight because I can show empathy for someone I have never met,

Err. yes actually. Or at least in the context of the comments made. As Smiths said, this is a punters forum and you're on the wrong site if you want to 'stand up' for prossies. I wouldn't mind so much but your comments bear no relationship to my post and failed to acknowledge that it was the prossie you were defending who actually got aggressive first.

[TemplarLord]

Maybe she got aggressive first because by the 6th post you said "I's look at her PG first f I was you. I did and she looks like a barebacker, plus not very attractive."

And by the 12th post you said "Now I can't say for certain that she is a barebacker but no sane WG who doesn't want to encourage BB keeps bareback pictures in her galleries. Here's another pic where she is having protected anal sex so you have images of both protected and unprotected sex."

You posted your point of view from some photo's not everyone would pay for, and even more suspicious saved them, why? I am seriously curious now, why did you save them? Do you save every PG photo you've paid for? Or just the ones with BB pics?

[Turtle Z]

Maybe she got aggressive first because by the 6th post you said "I's look at her PG first f I was you. I did and she looks like a barebacker, plus not very attractive."

And by the 12th post you said "Now I can't say for certain that she is a barebacker but no sane WG who doesn't want to encourage BB keeps bareback pictures in her galleries. Here's another pic where she is having protected anal sex so you have images of both protected and unprotected sex."

You posted your point of view from some photo's not everyone would pay for, and even more suspicious saved them, why? I am seriously curious now, why did you save them? Do you save every PG photo you've paid for? Or just the ones with BB pics?

I'm flattered that you've gone over every one of my posts but my message has been consistent, I said she looked like a barebacker, not that she was. I save pics from every private gallery if I think there's a need and yes, in this case I saved them because there were barebacking pics in case the subject cropped up to warn other punters. However, I'm repeating myself now and your curiosity could have been sated if you'd simply read where I've previously written this. Again, you don't seem to understand that this is a punters forum where punters try to help each other out and raise warning flags. There are numerous threads on this site containing saved images from PG's and members verifications pics, taken before the girls had them removed. Punters do this because it helps other punters, so to round up and to hope that you finally get the message, I save PG pics for two reasons:

1. Where I think the information may be useful in helping other punters.
2. To save other punters having to pay to see what's in the PG.

Now, I know with you being a white knight and all, that you'll be outraged by that, you'll be indignant that this is affecting the poor prossies income and standard of living and that if punters want to see the girls PG that they should pay for it themselves, but again, this is a punters forum. Tell you what though, you could amuse us by giving us the big reveal on your suspicions as to why me and other punters save PG pics. Is it a conspiracy, are we using them to set up fake profiles on AW, maybe I'm living the life of luxury in Monte Carlo from all my fake private gallery fees. Or is it even more suspicious? Go on, tell us, you know you want to??

Oh, and one more thing that I actually forget. The only reason I viewed this girls PG was because me and another girl looked at her with a view to a threesome. It was important that we both saw enough to make a decision and we both ruled her out because of the barebacking pics.

[TemplarLord]

I'm flattered that you've gone over every one of my posts but my message has been consistent, I said she looked like a barebacker, not that she was. I save pics from every private gallery if I think there's a need and yes, in this case I saved them because there were barebacking pics in case the subject cropped up to warn other punters. However, I'm repeating myself now and your curiosity could have been sated if you'd simply read where I've previously written this. Again, you don't seem to understand that this is a punters forum where punters try to help each other out and raise warning flags. There are numerous threads on this site containing saved images from PG's and members verifications pics, taken before the girls had them removed. Punters do this because it helps other punters, so to round up and to hope that you finally get the message, I save PG pics for two reasons:

1. Where I think the information may be useful in helping other punters.
2. To save other punters having to pay to see what's in the PG.

Now, I know with you being a white knight and all, that you'll be outraged by that, you'll be indignant that this is affecting the poor prossies income and standard of living and that if punters want to see the girls PG that they should pay for it themselves, but again, this is a punters forum. Tell you what though, you could amuse us by giving us the big reveal on your suspicions as to why me and other punters save PG pics. Is it a conspiracy, are we using them to set up fake profiles on AW, maybe I'm living the life of luxury in Monte Carlo from all my fake private gallery fees. Or is it even more suspicious? Go on, tell us, you know you want to??

Oh, and one more thing that I actually forget. The only reason I viewed this girls PG was because me and another girl looked at her with a view to a threesome. It was important that we both saw enough to make a decision and we both ruled her out because of the barebacking pics.

I am aware of what this forum is for, I have contributed to it with my posts & reviews albeit not as many as you because I haven't been a member as long as you have.

I can believe some people save images from PG's I don't, I don't see the need to. I could believe that some guys use them for wank fodder, I don't.

Fine you had a reason for it, as added information for a punt.

Again you label me as a White Knight, whatever go ahead if it makes you feel better in your crusade against BB.

[Gordon Bennett]

I do find it a bit incongruous, if not daft, when ladies are  offering and insisting on safe/covered service but then have a gallery with photos of bare cocks in their fannies or with spunk splashed all over their pussies.
I wouldn't let one or two pics put me off though, I'd just assume it was from their personal life and partner. But, I did see one gallery of a lady I was considering with dozens of photos of several different bare cocks up her so I gave her a miss.
In all honesty, I'd rather not see ANY photos of them fucking or cavorting with a guy, covered or not....... Gets in the way of my fluffy GFE fantasy!

[mrfishyfoo]

In all honesty, I'd rather not see ANY photos of them fucking or cavorting with a guy, covered or not....... Gets in the way of my fluffy GFE fantasy!

+1

[Turtle Z]

I can believe some people save images from PG's I don't, I don't see the need to.

Again you label me as a White Knight, whatever go ahead if it makes you feel better in your crusade against BB.

What, you really think you've never looked at an image on this site that someones saved? You don't see the need,  have a word with yourself. My crusade against BB falls well short of matching your crusade for 'The lady.' 

[broksonic]

I will check a girls PG to see oif there are any BB pictures and will not book her .