Are Any of Us Responsible??..........

[punther]

the opposite of responsible is  irresponsible

the opposite of irresponsible is responsible

hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder

---

The general consensus it seems of WG's and Punters is that

1. A WG that barebacks is highly irresponsible
2. A Punter that visits WG's who openly bareback (regardless of whether they engaged in bareback sex with them) is irresponsible

Assuming that there is no debate that the 2 statements above hold true and the two types of individuals described above are irresponsible without question.


For another WG/Punter who cannot be described as any of the two individuals above(1. & 2.)  BUT  themselves engage in unprotected oral sex( OWO & RO) with strangers they have only just met and who have had a large number of sexual partners in a short space of time ,  to feel self-assured to express an opinion to either of the two individuals mentioned above(1. & 2.) that they feel they are irresponsible one would assume that:

a. the other WG/Punter believes they are responsible and feel they can call somebody else out for being irresponsible

b. the other WG/Punter acknowledges they themselves are irresponsible but also wants to call somebody else out for being irresponsible


The Questions
( NB: please assume the two types of people the questions are asking about below DO NOT engage in any bareback penetrative sex or associate in anyway with punters or wg's who do when the punt/escort)

Q1) Is it possible for a Punter that engages in unprotected oral sex(giving and/or receiving) with a WG who also has unprotected oral sex with multiple strangers  over a short period of time  to be a responsible individual?

Q2) Is it possible for a WG that engages in unprotected oral sex(giving and/or receiving) with multiple strangers  over a short period of time to be a responsible individual?

If you believe the answer to Q1 and Q2 to be NO:

Q3) What are your thoughts on the individual described in a. ?

Q4) What are your thoughts on the individual described in b. ?


If you believe the answer to Q1 and Q2 to be YES,

***Q5) are you able to explain why they are a responsible individual in terms of the decisions they have taken? 

(please do not consider their decisions relative to the decisions others make but simply just look at their decision for what they are in isolation from any comparison)

[CluckinBell]

I think OWO and R.O are calculated risk whereas bareback is a stupid risk.

[Belgarion]

This thread just smacks of desperation. Would you get into a car with dodgy brakes?

[daviemac]

WTF are you on about, how can anybody answer this

***Q5) are you able to explain why they are a responsible individual in terms of the decisions they have taken? 

  Just as I can't explain why you've posted this on here instead of UKE, I can't explain the actions of others. We all make our own decisions based on the risk we're prepared to take. 

[smiths]

I take the risks I am prepared to take for the rewards on offer as I see them, for me that means I do OWO but wouldn't do BB as the former is worth the reward on offer, the latter certainly isn't.

IF I am aware a WG offers BB to punters as she advertises she does I avoid her like the plague as I don't wish to meet and punt with such fucking idiots and skanks. My money, my life, my choice.

I don't know the exact risk I am taking when I punt as I don't know the WG well enough, same with civvies I don't know and maybe even civvies I do know, cheating is hardly a rare occurence. I could get infected at any time, the best I can do is the above and go to the GUM on a regular basis unless I took the very best option health wise, didn't punt at all and didn't have sex with civvies, neither of which I choose to take as an option. And I could stick to OW instead of OWO which I choose not to do.

ANY WG even if she doesn't offer any punters BB may well be doing BB with her partner/s and/or pimp if she has one, its all cock irrespective of where it comes from, nothing I can do about that apart from not punting at all which as I say isn't an option I choose to take. Knowing for sure a WG does offer BB at least means I can easily avoid them while they advertise they offer it. Its a no brainer for me.

[taleofwoe]

It's pointless to try to come up with black and white categories of responsible and irresponsible. Agree it is much more of a grey area of trying to assess risk vs reward. Most people have become convinced bareback falls into the "stupidly risky" category while OWO is less likely to give you the most serious diseases. To be honest I don't know anything about it and just follow the majority vote. But I don't come on here to judge anyone.

[punther]

But I don't come on here to judge anyone.

 

[threechilliman]

I haven't seen a question that complicated since I were at University.....

[punther]

I think OWO and R.O are calculated risk whereas bareback is a stupid risk.

bareback is a (calculated) stupid rosk and is irresponsible...agreed

OWO is a calculated(less stupid) risk, ok, but is the act of engaging in it with a high risk group  responsible or irresponsible?

[punther]

This thread just smacks of desperation. Would you get into a car with dodgy brakes?

the respones is interesting

already it has been stated that bb'ers or anyone that sees them is irresponsible, without question

the questions are not about bb'ers as we have already established the views around this that it is stupid, crazy, irresponsible etc.


this question is about whether a person can be seen as responsible if they engage in unprotected oral sex with escorts(a high risk group)

can they?..and if so why?

[Belgarion]

the respones is interesting

already it has been stated that bb'ers or anyone that sees them is irresponsible, without question

the questions are not about bb'ers as we have already established the views around this that it is stupid, crazy, irresponsible etc.


this question is about whether a person can be seen as responsible if they engage in unprotected oral sex with escorts(a high risk group)

can they?..and if so why?

Have you ever been to a GUM?

[Plan R]

I haven't seen a question that complicated since I were at University.....

Was thinking just that.
The format induced about as much enjoyment as working through
last years A Level Physics papers  used to  at school

[Flunt]

the respones is interesting

already it has been stated that bb'ers or anyone that sees them is irresponsible, without question

the questions are not about bb'ers as we have already established the views around this that it is stupid, crazy, irresponsible etc.


this question is about whether a person can be seen as responsible if they engage in unprotected oral sex with escorts(a high risk group)

can they?..and if so why?

Responsible:
having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed

We are only responsible for ourselves. Some punters are obsessed with BB and avoid at all costs, others actively pursue BB (it's their choice) and somewhere in the middle are the majority who acknowledge the existence of BB and avoid it where possible.

As punters we can avoid pro$$ies like Kirie, for fear of diseases or the thought of getting a mouthful of sloppy seconds. Pro$$ies don't have such luxuries and take what comes through the door or reject a booking from a punter who regularly sees BB providers. What happened between you and Kirie is between you but it reminds me of the politicians who smoke cannabis and didn't inhale, why would you see someone like that, if not for BB?

Looking at the risks, I believe I have more chance of being killed en route than catching HIV from OWO, whereas that risk increases when partaking of condom free vaginal, or worse still, anal sex. There are a tiny proportion of HIV infected pro$$ies so the chances are fairly slim of meeting one and even slimmer catching HIV.

The bigger problems are associated with the less serious diseases, which are only fatal when passed to an irate other half. Considering things like incubation periods, from a punters perspective, a pro$$ie could shag 50 punters from being infected in the two weeks before she has symptoms, if any. Over a month, between GUM tests, that could be a 100 different cocks making a lot of porridge! In a small community where we are sharing the same pro$$ies it could soon become an epidemic.

While those of us avoid Miss BB to avoid the associated problems it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the barrel. The knock on effect from your actions could ruin the reputations of any number of pro$$ies (you could unknowingly infect) as well as the lives of punters infected by Miss Saafe. We represent a minority of punters, along with the fact that BB is a popular choice for a significant number, hence the availability, but ask yourself the question, do you want to be responsible for being the rotten apple that causes the epidemic?

[punther]

Responsible:
having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed

We are only responsible for ourselves. Some punters are obsessed with BB and avoid at all costs, others actively pursue BB (it's their choice) and somewhere in the middle are the majority who acknowledge the existence of BB and avoid it where possible.

As punters we can avoid pro$$ies like Kirie, for fear of diseases or the thought of getting a mouthful of sloppy seconds. Pro$$ies don't have such luxuries and take what comes through the door or reject a booking from a punter who regularly sees BB providers. What happened between you and Kirie is between you but it reminds me of the politicians who smoke cannabis and didn't inhale, why would you see someone like that, if not for BB?

Looking at the risks, I believe I have more chance of being killed en route than catching HIV from OWO, whereas that risk increases when partaking of condom free vaginal, or worse still, anal sex. There are a tiny proportion of HIV infected pro$$ies so the chances are fairly slim of meeting one and even slimmer catching HIV.

The bigger problems are associated with the less serious diseases, which are only fatal when passed to an irate other half. Considering things like incubation periods, from a punters perspective, a pro$$ie could shag 50 punters from being infected in the two weeks before she has symptoms, if any. Over a month, between GUM tests, that could be a 100 different cocks making a lot of porridge! In a small community where we are sharing the same pro$$ies it could soon become an epidemic.

While those of us avoid Miss BB to avoid the associated problems it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the barrel. The knock on effect from your actions could ruin the reputations of any number of pro$$ies (you could unknowingly infect) as well as the lives of punters infected by Miss Saafe. We represent a minority of punters, along with the fact that BB is a popular choice for a significant number, hence the availability, but ask yourself the question, do you want to be responsible for being the rotten apple that causes the epidemic?

ok that is an interesting post, but is there a reason you are not answering the actual question being asked

while it is more likely you will be killed en route than catching HIV from OWO, the question is do you feel it is possible to describe your choice of receiving OWO as a responsible thing to do in itself?

[punther]

Have you ever been to a GUM?

yes, after catching the only sti i have had in my life from a popular, non-barebacking escort  who i received only OWO from, I had to go to a GUM to receive a course of antibiotics

i've answered your question

so are you going to answer the one put to you or are you going to keep swerving it?

do you feel its possible for you or anyone else who engages in unprotected oral sex with sex workers to be responsible and are you able to explain why?

[Flunt]

ok that is an interesting post, but is there a reason you are not answering the actual question being asked

while it is more likely you will be killed en route than catching HIV from OWO, the question is do you feel it is possible to describe your choice of receiving OWO as a responsible thing to do in itself?

If you start from the argument is punting responsible then your answers flow from there. Chatting to the nurse in the GUM clinic she would say that it is irresponsible, but tough, I'm going to enjoy it. What level of enjoyment I hope to attain is a personal preference, OWO carries some risk, as does RO. If you think of two pro$$ies Miss BB and Miss Saafe then the risks of catching anything is reduced by visiting Miss Saafe, IMHO, but my main reason for avoiding BB is the thought of a mouthful of sloppy seconds from the previous punter.

I don't consider myself better or worse than the punter who indulges in BB, in the non-punting world we are all the same. Whoever catches a dose of whatever and has to explain to the missus, the pile of shit he finds himself in isn't going to be any less if the only answer is, "I wore a condom for sex."

Trying to define men or women involved in punting as either responsible or irresponsible is a judgement I cannot make, it's a risky pastime that we enjoy and, like anything, we can minimise that risk by taking precautions.

[Belgarion]

yes, after catching the only sti i have had in my life from a popular, non-barebacking escort  who i received only OWO from, I had to go to a GUM to receive a course of antibiotics

i've answered your question

so are you going to answer the one put to you or are you going to keep swerving it?

do you feel its possible for you or anyone else who engages in unprotected oral sex with sex workers to be responsible and are you able to explain why?

You haven't asked a question. You have tired to justify you seeing a barebacking skank and your ego cannot deal with the criticism.

[punther]

If you start from the argument is punting responsible then your answers flow from there. Chatting to the nurse in the GUM clinic she would say that it is irresponsible, but tough, I'm going to enjoy it. What level of enjoyment I hope to attain is a personal preference, OWO carries some risk, as does RO. If you think of two pro$$ies Miss BB and Miss Saafe then the risks of catching anything is reduced by visiting Miss Saafe, IMHO, but my main reason for avoiding BB is the thought of a mouthful of sloppy seconds from the previous punter.

I don't consider myself better or worse than the punter who indulges in BB, in the non-punting world we are all the same. Whoever catches a dose of whatever and has to explain to the missus, the pile of shit he finds himself in isn't going to be any less if the only answer is, "I wore a condom for sex."

Trying to define men or women involved in punting as either responsible or irresponsible is a judgement I cannot make, it's a risky pastime that we enjoy and, like anything, we can minimise that risk by taking precautions.

perfect 

[punther]

You haven't asked a question. You have tired to justify you seeing a barebacking skank and your ego cannot deal with the criticism.

my opinion is not limited to BB skanks

i feel the act of visiting any sex worker is risky

i feel engaging in any any form of unprotected sex oral or penetrative whether with a barbacking skank or a non-barebacking skank sex worker is highly irresponsible

...but this was never the point of contention

its also the first time you have asked me this question, prior to this all you have done is point the finger and pass judgement


...the point of contention from the very beginning was how  can someone else who engages in any of the activities above,    e.g. you and others that do the same,    feel self assured enough to judge another person without being a hypocrite or delusional

[JamesDim]

I'd avoid any WG offering BB for obvious reasons! High risk with very little to gain, other than a short burst of pleasure.

A few years ago though, on one of my first punts, I'd booked a cheap 15 min quickie with a Hungarian on AW. It was a bait and switch (which she admitted on arrival) and after OWO and being in 'autopilot' it dawned on me, after shooting my load inside her, that no rubber had been offered or used. Checked the profile afterwards to see 'bareback' listed under the likes and felt like an absolute twat! A schoolboy noob error that was never repeated.

[Malvolio]

I don't see what being responsible has to do with it.  I get OWO from prostitutes because I enjoy it, and you can call me what you like for making that choice.

[Kev40ish]

Panther, your not winning any friends or support..

Your quite a pedantic we all know the risks we take.
What we call responsible or irresponsible is irrelevant, what is important is are we comfortable with the risk we take.

Your comfortable with your boundries, so is everyone else with theirs.

We’re all going to think differently, what we class as reasonable responsible behaviour.

[stampjones]

Punther  i agree and disagree with you.
Some punters never even see a girl, some do anal bareback with drug addled streetwalkers. We are all somewhere between those extremes.
Some prossies never meet an actual client, some do whatever the guy paying wants regardless of risk. All are between those extremes.
Basically we as punters - unless we’ve spent our entire life staring at the relevant pussy - have no idea what has gone on their leading up to the monent we insert our dick (or whatever the plan is)
So we all take risks. All of us. Every single time we punt.
The only thing is different is the level of risk we are willing to take in return for our thrills (see what smiths pisted for a better explanation).
Most of us (me included) set that limit at owo. Some go farther and bb prossies, some go less far and do everything covered. When I first came to london I got pissed one time and got a bj off a kings cross streetwalker and got nsu. Took pills and got cured but for a good few years after that, although I continued punting, I basically had zero contact. Id grope their tits and wank myself off (using a tissue to avoid any transfer). When I look back I think wtf, but that was the level of risk I was willing to take at that point. Now I happily owo and fuck (protected).
So the point is we are all somewhere on the same line and we probably move around in the course of our lives.
So when one of us at one point on the line starts slagging off someone else at another point, these days I think that is just self delusion and hypocricy. The arguments against barebackers on here are exactly the same arguments the press make against the rest of us for visiting prostitutes. Exactly the same. They should live to our particular (random) moral standards.
We all have different risk factors though. We should accept it and use it.
Punther - you are happy to visit prossies who bb (tho you dont do it yourself). Thats fine by me. HP bb’s prossies. Thats fine be me too. I’d rather not do either personally but the best way for me (and everyone) to control my preferred risk level is to have maximum information. When bbers or punther or whoever get abuse for simply doing what they want to do, that discourages others with similar predilections from posting and therefore reduces the information we all have available to make choices.

Long story short - I truly believe we should stop slagging off other punters for simply doing whatever their particular thing is. Any information is good information and if you get stuck into someone for no reason other than they dont happen to share your risk level (“morals”) then, as well as being self defeating, you are no better than the daily mail et al. And you are a hypocrite
My 2c

[CluckinBell]

bareback is a (calculated) stupid rosk and is irresponsible...agreed

OWO is a calculated(less stupid) risk, ok, but is the act of engaging in it with a high risk group  responsible or irresponsible?

who i am to judge who is responsible or irresponsible,we all take risks,we all do stupid things......free will.


 

[punther]

I don't see what being responsible has to do with it.  I get OWO from prostitutes because I enjoy it, and you can call me what you like for making that choice.

i too receive owo from prostitutes because i enjoy it, though i know its irresponsible, i do it nonetheless

i acknowledge like me, you receive owo from prostitutes, i think its irresponsible.....but I don't judge and condemn you for it....because who am i to talk right I'd be a hypocrite if i did so

this is the point im trying to make to belagrion et al

they feel having any activity with a BB escort is irresponsible(agreed)....and they do judge and condemn......the question is what gives them the self assurance to feel they can do this?  - is it because ulinke the irresponsible person that see's the bbers they instead are responsible

if so they need to explain how their current practices with prostitutes are responsible

if they are unable to do this then we come back to the question why do they feel they are in a position to condemn

[punther]

Panther, your not winning any friends or support..

im no trying to make friends, im try to show you and other like you that you are hypocrites(or deluded)

Your quite a pedantic we all know the risks we take.
What we call responsible or irresponsible is irrelevant, what is important is are we comfortable with the risk we take.

Your comfortable with your boundries, so is everyone else with theirs.

your tone seems to have mellowed down.....
looks like you finally coming to see reason...knew we would get there eventually

We’re all going to think differently, what we class as reasonable responsible behaviour.

exactly...and knowledge of this is the reason why you shouldn't point the finger, judge and condemn others

[punther]

who i am to judge who is responsible or irresponsible,we all take risks,we all do stupid things......free will.

  ...exactly this

[punther]

Punther  i agree and disagree with you.
Some punters never even see a girl, some do anal bareback with drug addled streetwalkers. We are all somewhere between those extremes.
Some prossies never meet an actual client, some do whatever the guy paying wants regardless of risk. All are between those extremes.
Basically we as punters - unless we’ve spent our entire life staring at the relevant pussy - have no idea what has gone on their leading up to the monent we insert our dick (or whatever the plan is)
So we all take risks. All of us. Every single time we punt.
The only thing is different is the level of risk we are willing to take in return for our thrills (see what smiths pisted for a better explanation).
Most of us (me included) set that limit at owo. Some go farther and bb prossies, some go less far and do everything covered. When I first came to london I got pissed one time and got a bj off a kings cross streetwalker and got nsu. Took pills and got cured but for a good few years after that, although I continued punting, I basically had zero contact. Id grope their tits and wank myself off (using a tissue to avoid any transfer). When I look back I think wtf, but that was the level of risk I was willing to take at that point. Now I happily owo and fuck (protected).
So the point is we are all somewhere on the same line and we probably move around in the course of our lives.
So when one of us at one point on the line starts slagging off someone else at another point, these days I think that is just self delusion and hypocricy. The arguments against barebackers on here are exactly the same arguments the press make against the rest of us for visiting prostitutes. Exactly the same. They should live to our particular (random) moral standards.
We all have different risk factors though. We should accept it and use it.
Punther - you are happy to visit prossies who bb (tho you dont do it yourself). Thats fine by me. HP bb’s prossies. Thats fine be me too. I’d rather not do either personally but the best way for me (and everyone) to control my preferred risk level is to have maximum information. When bbers or punther or whoever get abuse for simply doing what they want to do, that discourages others with similar predilections from posting and therefore reduces the information we all have available to make choices.

Long story short - I truly believe we should stop slagging off other punters for simply doing whatever their particular thing is. Any information is good information and if you get stuck into someone for no reason other than they dont happen to share your risk level (“morals”) then, as well as being self defeating, you are no better than the daily mail et al. And you are a hypocrite
My 2c

could not have said it more eloquently

(when you say you agree and disagree, i couldn't really see the disagreement, everything you said is exact the same viewpoint i hold)

[LLPunting]

I don't see what being responsible has to do with it.  I get OWO from prostitutes because I enjoy it, and you can call me what you like for making that choice.

+1 

[LLPunting]

Responsible:
having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed

We are only responsible for ourselves. Some punters are obsessed with BB and avoid at all costs, others actively pursue BB (it's their choice) and somewhere in the middle are the majority who acknowledge the existence of BB and avoid it where possible.

As punters we can avoid pro$$ies like Kirie, for fear of diseases or the thought of getting a mouthful of sloppy seconds. Pro$$ies don't have such luxuries and take what comes through the door or reject a booking from a punter who regularly sees BB providers. What happened between you and Kirie is between you but it reminds me of the politicians who smoke cannabis and didn't inhale, why would you see someone like that, if not for BB?

Looking at the risks, I believe I have more chance of being killed en route than catching HIV from OWO, whereas that risk increases when partaking of condom free vaginal, or worse still, anal sex. There are a tiny proportion of HIV infected pro$$ies so the chances are fairly slim of meeting one and even slimmer catching HIV.

The bigger problems are associated with the less serious diseases, which are only fatal when passed to an irate other half. Considering things like incubation periods, from a punters perspective, a pro$$ie could shag 50 punters from being infected in the two weeks before she has symptoms, if any. Over a month, between GUM tests, that could be a 100 different cocks making a lot of porridge! In a small community where we are sharing the same pro$$ies it could soon become an epidemic.

While those of us avoid Miss BB to avoid the associated problems it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the barrel. The knock on effect from your actions could ruin the reputations of any number of pro$$ies (you could unknowingly infect) as well as the lives of punters infected by Miss Saafe. We represent a minority of punters, along with the fact that BB is a popular choice for a significant number, hence the availability, but ask yourself the question, do you want to be responsible for being the rotten apple that causes the epidemic?

...

If you start from the argument is punting responsible then your answers flow from there. Chatting to the nurse in the GUM clinic she would say that it is irresponsible, but tough, I'm going to enjoy it. What level of enjoyment I hope to attain is a personal preference, OWO carries some risk, as does RO. If you think of two pro$$ies Miss BB and Miss Saafe then the risks of catching anything is reduced by visiting Miss Saafe, IMHO, but my main reason for avoiding BB is the thought of a mouthful of sloppy seconds from the previous punter.

I don't consider myself better or worse than the punter who indulges in BB, in the non-punting world we are all the same. Whoever catches a dose of whatever and has to explain to the missus, the pile of shit he finds himself in isn't going to be any less if the only answer is, "I wore a condom for sex."

Trying to define men or women involved in punting as either responsible or irresponsible is a judgement I cannot make, it's a risky pastime that we enjoy and, like anything, we can minimise that risk by taking precautions.

+1 

Well said.

[LLPunting]

who i am to judge who is responsible or irresponsible,we all take risks,we all do stupid things......free will.

You are responsible for your own actions presuming you are not considered medically unfit to make judgements about yourself e.g. insane, neurologically impaired.
IF your "responsible" actions increase the risk of harm to other parties who may or may not be aware of your actions then you are acting irresponsibly.  This has no bearing on whether the affected persons are themselves behaving responsibly or not.

[CluckinBell]

Doesn't matter how put it we all do/have done irresponsible and stupid things,no one is immune from that!

[LLPunting]

...

The general consensus it seems of WG's and Punters is that

1. A WG that barebacks is highly irresponsible if she does so indescriminately and regardless of her health status, less so if she only BBs with select monogamous partners who are medically cleared as healthy.
2. A Punter that visits WG's who openly bareback (regardless of whether they engaged in bareback sex with them) is irresponsible  only if he sees more than one WG and/or sexual partner and engages in unprotected acts that can transmit infection via him to others.  IF he were engaged in a monogamous, unprotected association with the BBWG and fully informed all subsequent prospective partners of his sexual past and health then he would be acting responsibly

Assuming that there is no debate that the 2 statements above hold true and the two types of individuals described above are irresponsible without question.
And this is where your questioning fails and becomes pointless, given the qualifications I've added above (and there are others that surely could be).


For another WG/Punter who cannot be described as any of the two individuals above(1. & 2.)  BUT  themselves engage in unprotected oral sex( OWO & RO) with strangers they have only just met and who have had a large number of sexual partners in a short space of time ,  to feel self-assured to express an opinion to either of the two individuals mentioned above(1. & 2.) that they feel they are irresponsible one would assume that:

a. the other WG/Punter believes they are responsible and feel they can call somebody else out for being irresponsible

b. the other WG/Punter acknowledges they themselves are irresponsible but also wants to call somebody else out for being irresponsible

Being a hypocrite does not preclude you from having a valid opinion or exerting valid judgement

Your obsession is based on a simplistic fundamentalist belief set that you are trying to impose of the spectrum of behaviours inherent in a group of people.


The Questions
( NB: please assume the two types of people the questions are asking about below DO NOT engage in any bareback penetrative sex or associate in anyway with punters or wg's who do when the punt/escort)
COMMENT: Your questions as posed are either consciously designed steering questions or incorrectly phrased for the "truth" you are after.

Q1) Is it possible for a Punter that engages in unprotected oral sex(giving and/or receiving) with a WG who also has unprotected oral sex with multiple strangers  over a short period of time  to be a responsible individual? 
COMMENT: The responsibility is whether or not all parties fully declare their sexual behaviours, histories and statuses and fully accept their liability BEFORE they engage sexually with each other.  If you cannot be certain of the risk you are taking or presenting then you are behaving irresponsibly, more or less so depending on the lack of knowledge you tolerate in deciding to continue with the engagement.

Q2) Is it possible for a WG that engages in unprotected oral sex(giving and/or receiving) with multiple strangers  over a short period of time to be a responsible individual? 
See comment for Q1


If you believe the answer to Q1 and Q2 to be NO:

Q3) What are your thoughts on the individual described in a. ?

Q4) What are your thoughts on the individual described in b. ?


If you believe the answer to Q1 and Q2 to be YES,

***Q5) are you able to explain why they are a responsible individual in terms of the decisions they have taken? 

(please do not consider their decisions relative to the decisions others make but simply just look at their decision for what they are in isolation from any comparison)

Nice try.  IF you're truly trying to get to the heart of this matter then go talk to some philosophers and ethicists to design your question better.

[LLPunting]

Doesn't matter how put it we all do/have done irresponsible and stupid things,no one is immune from that!

True and the only one apparently disputing that within this context is punther

[Formicahunt]

An ethical definition of responsibility requires a consensus because of the number of people both knowingly and unknowingly involved. However because punters often think as individuals (the discussion of how this hobby of ours is essentially selfish is a whole other thread) this distancing from consensus ameliorates any Aristolian notion of moral responsibility. However, we rarely stop to consider if getting noshed off or sticking our tongues in the holiest of holy is responsible, morally or not.

[punther]

True and the only one apparently disputing that within this context is punther

you keep trying to swerve direct questions and you think trying to attack the character of the person showing you up for what you really is going to help but it is not....it just shows you as weak

but it looks like we are getting somewhere.....

we all do stupid things,  for example  people go to visit bber's

but, as we all do stupid things....YOU included(visiting prostitutes for unprotected oral sex)....who are YOU to judge?......why do you feel you are in a position to criticise, condemn and pass judgement?

answer the question...cmon....why are you in a position to judge...which is something you have done on this forum  to me and to others based on our own personal choices which were not the same as yours

...who are YOU to judge?......why do you feel you are in a position to criticise, condemn and pass judgement?

be a man and answer the question....

[Kev40ish]

you keep trying to swerve direct questions and you think trying to attack the character of the person showing you up for what you really is going to help but it is not....it just shows you as weak

but it looks like we are getting somewhere.....

we all do stupid things,  for example  people go to visit bber's

but, as we all do stupid things....YOU included(visiting prostitutes for unprotected oral sex)....who are YOU to judge?......why do you feel you are in a position to criticise, condemn and pass judgement?

answer the question...cmon....why are you in a position to judge...which is something you have done on this forum  to me and to others based on our own personal choices which were not the same as yours

...who are YOU to judge?......why do you feel you are in a position to criticise, condemn and pass judgement?

be a man and answer the question....

The thing is everyone has a right to judge and criticise, that is the nature of this site.

It’s up to you if you just accept that everyone has different views and move on.

[punther]

Nice try.  IF you're truly trying to get to the heart of this matter then go talk to some philosophers and ethicists to design your question better.

wasn't going to post any more on this but just had to point this out as it was glaring...


2. A Punter that visits WG's who openly bareback (regardless of whether they engaged in bareback sex with them) is irresponsible 

{{only if he sees more than one WG and/or sexual partner and engages in unprotected acts that can transmit infection via him to others.}}

the bit in red brackets is what you added to the statements in your post

- this statement means that he is not irresponsible if he engages in protected penetrative sex with a bareback escorts -  it also contradicts all of your prior arguments (and ironically backs up the exact points I have been making)
 

- the statement also means if he engaged in unprotected oral with a bareback escort then he is irresponsible
    -   but then you need to be able to justify why unprotected oral sex with a non-barebacking escort is any safer (as we all know the mouth and vagina are not linked)
    - and if it is not safer based on what we know about STI transmission then how can someone who visits a non-barebacking escort for owo be any less irresponsible than someone who visits a barebacking escort for owo


you dont need to reply to this...just think about it

[daviemac]

punther

Non of this is as simple as you make out, you can't categorise someone as responsible or irresponsible by one course of action. It is possible to do something that you would class as irresponsible in a responsible manner, therefore being irresponsible and responsible at the same time.

A punter who actively seeks bareback sex could be classed as irresponsible, however if a punter found out he had unknowingly been with a barebacker then refrained from any sexual activities until he had been tested and given the all clear, despite using protection. he could be classed as responsible. If a casual punter chooses to seek out barebackers and partake in bareback sex but refrains from further sexual activities until tested and clear he's doing an irresponsible thing in a responsible manner.

Personally I avoid any hint of bareback, not because it's a responsible thing to do, but because it poses a risk I'm not prepared to take. We all have different ideas of what risk are worth taking and we all have to make our own decisions, I make mine based on risk v reward not whether it's irresponsible or not.

   

[LLPunting]

punther

Non of this is as simple as you make out, you can't categorise someone as responsible or irresponsible by one course of action. It is possible to do something that you would class as irresponsible in a responsible manner, therefore being irresponsible and responsible at the same time.

A punter who actively seeks bareback sex could be classed as irresponsible, however if a punter found out he had unknowingly been with a barebacker then refrained from any sexual activities until he had been tested and given the all clear, despite using protection. he could be classed as responsible. If a casual punter chooses to seek out barebackers and partake in bareback sex but refrains from further sexual activities until tested and clear he's doing an irresponsible thing in a responsible manner.

Personally I avoid any hint of bareback, not because it's a responsible thing to do, but because it poses a risk I'm not prepared to take. We all have different ideas of what risk are worth taking and we all have to make our own decisions, I make mine based on risk v reward not whether it's irresponsible or not.

   

Nicely put.

[punther]

hey daviemac i agree with what you have said

punther

Non of this is as simple as you make out, you can't categorise someone as responsible or irresponsible by one course of action. It is possible to do something that you would class as irresponsible in a responsible manner, therefore being irresponsible and responsible at the same time.

you are correct on this, and is what prompted this post

there seemed to be a very 'simple' view that someone who see's a barebacker, regardless of what they do with them, is irresponsible...even if they used protection for sex

so when i set out the case in the initial post it was to stay in line with that same 'simple' type of thinking so there was consistency

as you correctly say it is possible to do an irresponsible and responsible at the same time - (imo seeing someone that advertises bareback and using a condom if you have sex with them falls into this category)

LL who had that 'simple' view eventually came to a similar conclusion in his last post which was pleasing to see as he previously held the opinion that going anywhere near a BBer was 'simply' irresponsible even if you didnt bareback them

Personally I avoid any hint of bareback, not because it's a responsible thing to do, but because it poses a risk I'm not prepared to take. We all have different ideas of what risk are worth taking and we all have to make our own decisions, I make mine based on risk v reward not whether it's irresponsible or not.
   

this is another good point you've made and one of the points it seemed like LL and some others couldn't see....its to do with the way you made your point

we can hold our opinions but can also do so without passing a judgement and that is exactly what you have done here 

but if we do decide to pass judgement we need to be able to be able justify ourselves and the things we do in their own right

[Flunt]

Non of this is as simple as you make out, you can't categorise someone as responsible or irresponsible by one course of action.

This was going to be the basis of my disagreement with Punther's opinion.

To jump out of a perfectly working aeroplane is entirely irresponsible but given appropriate training and a parachute it is less of an irresponsible thing to do (insurance companies take a different view), I imagine, it is thrilling.

To simplify Punther's position: we are all equally irresponsible because we pay pro$$ies and any criticism of choices is hypocritical and delusional?

The flaw in the argument is that when someone takes part in a risky activity they take reasonable precautions to avoid a negative outcome, that is a responsible approach. For skydivers that would involve whatever safety procedures are appropriate.

As punters what are reasonable precautions? I would suggest that choosing Miss BB over Miss Saafe is not a reasonable precaution? The fact that Miss BB advertises bareback and proudly has, "Q. BAREBACK FUCKING   A. I LOVE IT! ANAL,CUNT OR MOUTH ARE ALL FINE FOR YOU TO CUM DEEP IN PLUS I ENJOY A BIG FACIAL TOO! IM TESTED EVERY WEEK PRIVATE CLINIC" on her profile is someone who has no regard for her own personal well being nor that of any punter she comes into contact with. The opposite approach taken by Miss Saafe, who has a responsible approach to her sexual health is a reasonable precaution to consider. The activities that a punter and pro$$ie do together is another area of choice, the greater the risk the better the experience. Personally a happy ending is something I can do on my own and not worth the cost and effort, the other extreme of barebacking is a step too far, for me, each to their own.

For the outside world looking in then we are all dirty old men and fucking prostitutes is disgusting and irresponsible. Punther, you are not on the outside looking in, you have substantial personal experience along with a great many opinions offered on forums, like this one. From within the industry responsible and irresponsible can be seen in a different context, criticism of your choices is not hypocritical, it is sound advice from within a community whose moral judgement on responsible behaviour is different from the general public.

Looking at the risk versus reward in relation to OWO, the choice of pro$$ie should be a serious consideration. One who takes her personal sexual health seriously is less risky than one who doesn't, neither choice offers a guaranteed outcome of whether you catch an STD or not. One of the reasons Miss Saafe has a risk attached to her is a punter seeing Miss BB before he sees Miss Saafe which is why it attracts such criticism.

[stampjones]

Been thinking about this some more and I think it helps to seperate the ideas of personal risk and irresponsibility and let the former refer to the risk we take as individuals and the latter to the extra risk we create for everyone else in the community with our actions. While it is semantically possible to be personally irresponsible, I dont think anyone really care what anyone else does at that level.

To make things easier lets divide the punting world into 4 groups, G0, G1, G2 and G3 based on the number of holes they think its ok to stick a bare dick into: so G0 is all protected, G1 is OWO only, G2 bb pussy and G3 bb anal. Note that the personal risk and irresponsibility to others gets higher alongside the numbers.

Probably in a world without consequences (sti, pregnancy) we’d all be in G3. I mean who actually likes condoms (actually I just realised I’d be in G2 as I really have no desire to get someone else’s shit on any part of my body but thats a whole different thing).

Trouble is we dont live in that world so we all realign ourselves into one of the groups based on the risk we are willing to take. That gives you a good reason to get angry with someone in a higher group because you have set your risk level and these bastards are increasing it! But unless you are in G0 there is another group of people who think exactly the same about you. If you are an owo lover in G1 then the bb guys really piss you off but you are being just as irresponsible to all the guys who do everything protected.

What about a world where you personally were guaranteed to have no consequences but everyone else would (and you could still transmit infections)? I think everyone would stick in G3. Maybe they would logically want to be in a lower group but there would be no investment and we all know how little brain takes over when it comes down to it.

Final world - you are at risk but there is no risk to the community (you always act responnsibly). Would that change the group you’d put yourself in? I dont think so. We alljudge both our risk and responsibility level simply on the level of personal risk we want to take.

I think that is the core of this and similar arguments and why BBers get such vitriol directed their way. Everyone wants to be where they have decided is best and fundamentally believe that everyone else should follow suit with that choice.

Trouble is that is never going to happen. There will always be people in all groups. We could make a community law that says you have to be in G1 but everyone would just ignore it. Thats pretty much what we all do everytime we punt (not a statutary law obviously). The hard fact is there will always be those who want to live in riskier categories than we do and in so doing increase our risk. Just as we - all of us here - increase the risk for the non-punting world by our behaviour. ie as far as they are concerned we all act irresponsibly.

So we can shout and scream at people or cover our eyes and ears and pretend it isnt so - or we can act like grown ups and accept it. And if we do that and welcome all punters - whatever group or sub group they find themselves in. If we do that we are all in a better place because we all have maximum information. After all a secret barebacker is no longer secret if someone writes a review about it. That to me is everything that is great about this site - maximum information 

[Formicahunt]

Your argument has a massive flaw Punther in that you've attributed value to an abstract concept- responsibility. Because actions have relationships with other events you can never understand what you'll ultimately be responsible for. You drive to a punt, you're responsible for rising emmisions, this leads to higher concerns around the climate, the oil industry collapses, lots of Arabs and Richard Hammond lose their jobs.

I went to a Jain temple once and strict devotees there where facemasks and sweep the floor ahead of them in case they kill an insect, partly because they value all life but also because they don't want to impact on universal balance. They really understand relational responsibility.

[punther]

To simplify Punther's position: we are all equally irresponsible because we pay pro$$ies and any criticism of choices is hypocritical and delusional?

The flaw in the argument is that when someone takes part in a risky activity they take reasonable precautions to avoid a negative outcome, that is a responsible approach. For skydivers that would involve whatever safety procedures are appropriate.

My thinking is that to be able to say you take reasonable precaution you need to be able to explain why receiving unprotected oral sex from a 'Clean, respepectable' WG  is reasonable and taking a precaution, in its own right

in its own right, its difficult for anybody to do this....as we have seen when asked this question its not been possible for anyone to give a straight answer

now a lot of us do it because we enjoy it.....but to be able to say receiving unprotected oral from a prostitute is taking precaution, in its own right....no

if anyone was taking a reasonable precaution at best they would receive protected oral and not engage in any unprotected activity regardless of who the WG was

If the punter that gave the advice or was making criticism received only protected oral and protected penetration then it would be a different story

A punter that engaged in protected penetration ONLY and nothing else with Kiirie   IS  taking less risk than a punter that received OWO from a 'clean, respectable,non-barebacking' WG   - if you think contrary to this, genuinely, it would be interesting to hear your rational

One who takes her personal sexual health seriously is less risky than one who doesn't, neither choice offers a guaranteed outcome of whether you catch an STD or not.
One of the reasons Miss Saafe has a risk attached to her is a punter seeing Miss BB before he sees Miss Saafe which is why it attracts such criticism

the main risk attached to miss safe is her CHOICE to give unprotected oral sex..and entering 'the Pool'.   
The moment she starts to offer unprotected oral sex to multiple men over a short period of time, it is impossible to describe her as safe...irrespective of whether she uses mouthwash after every blowjob  or doesn't bareback

Miss safe is the WG that provides only protected oral

my opinion is if a person is unable to rationalise unprotected oral sexual activity with a 'responsible' sex worker, in its own right(without comparing it to something esle)  it is not possible for them to say they are taking precaution  (as by doing so you have now exposed yourself to 'the pool'...which includes people like kiirie)    - this is where the delusion/hypocrisy part comes in, IMO

[stampjones]

A punter that engaged in protected penetration ONLY and nothing else with Kiirie   IS  taking less risk than a punter that received OWO from a 'clean, respectable,non-barebacking' WG   - if you think contrary to this, genuinely, it would be interesting to hear your rational

I dont know if that is true.
The kirie risk is the chance that she is infected AND the chance that the condom doesnt protect you
The owo risk is the chance that she is infected AND the chance of transmission through oral

So we can all agree that the chance of kirie being infected is higher than miss owo. So it all depends on how much less chance there is of getting infected via condom sex than owo. For your assertion to be correct that number needs to be bigger than how much riskier kirie is being than miss owo. My gut feeling would be that the miss owo is safer, but really none of us really knows.

[daviemac]

my opinion is if a person is unable to rationalise unprotected oral sexual activity with a 'responsible' sex worker, in its own right(without comparing it to something esle)  it is not possible for them to say they are taking precaution  (as by doing so you have now exposed yourself to 'the pool'...which includes people like kiirie)    - this is where the delusion/hypocrisy part comes in, IMO

This is the trouble with threads like this, it's your opinion and you can't accept that other people's opinions differ. Like has been said many times it's all to do with risk and reward. Ask at your GUM clinic and they'll explain all the risks and you'll find catching anything from oral is fairly low down the list.

You claim that it's not possible to say you take precautions if receiving unprotected oral, I disagree, if I select the SP carefully and avoid known barebackers I'm taking the necessary precautions.

I justify my having unprotected oral because I take the precautions I think are adequate
   

precaution

NOUN
a measure taken in advance to prevent something dangerous, unpleasant, or inconvenient from happening.

[Flunt]

Ask yourself if there is a difference in attitude towards sexual health from someone like Kirie and Miss Saafe. If you believe there is no difference then you have your answer, with that belief then condoms for any activity with any pro$$ie becomes optional. To follow your logic through, it is equally likely that someone who rarely uses condoms for any sexual activity represents the same risk as someone who only offers OWO then why would any pro$$ie insist on condoms for sex (ignoring the pregnancy risk)?

The majority opinion, on this forum, is that Miss BB has a careless attitude towards her own personal sexual health, whereas others are more cautious and represent a less risky option. Abstinence is the only certainty of avoiding an STD, condoms reduce the risk, being selective about where you put your cock is more hope than expectation. Considering one pro$$ie's attitude towards their own and their punter's sexual health is a reasonable precaution, if you cannot see that as being more responsible then next time you see Kirie fill your boots and her arse, pussy, wherever.

[punther]

Your argument has a massive flaw Punther in that you've attributed value to an abstract concept- responsibility. Because actions have relationships with other events you can never understand what you'll ultimately be responsible for. You drive to a punt, you're responsible for rising emmisions, this leads to higher concerns around the climate, the oil industry collapses, lots of Arabs and Richard Hammond lose their jobs.

I went to a Jain temple once and strict devotees there where facemasks and sweep the floor ahead of them in case they kill an insect, partly because they value all life but also because they don't want to impact on universal balance. They really understand relational responsibility.

can see where you are coming from

the argument and the use of 'responsibility' & 'irresponsibility' was based on the rational that was used to criticise the choices that others make by some forum members

so when forming the argument i kept the same rational

the fact that you are querying it challenges the rational of those that used it when criticising. Meaning that the basis of their criticism was flawed.  Would you say that is a fair deduction?

[punther]

I dont know if that is true.
The kirie risk is the chance that she is infected AND the chance that the condom doesnt protect you
The owo risk is the chance that she is infected AND the chance of transmission through oral

So we can all agree that the chance of kirie being infected is higher than miss owo. So it all depends on how much less chance there is of getting infected via condom sex than owo. For your assertion to be correct that number needs to be bigger than how much riskier kirie is being than miss owo. My gut feeling would be that the miss owo is safer, but really none of us really knows.

it would be interesting to know what the outcome of this would be if some sort of study was done