A question of ethics and safety?

[Odd Job]

That is true but to actively pick WG's who are advertising bareback would be concerning wouldn't it?

I wouldn’t actively seek it and the girl would have to be especially alluring to tempt me and so far I’ve never seen an open barebacker who would tempt me. All punting is risky, it’s probably safer having a fully covered punt with a barebacker than having OWO with a normal girl, as even if she doesn’t do B.B. that doesn’t mean you can’t catch anything from oral. It’s about what degrees of risk you are willing to take.

It does however make me smile when I see people losing a gasket over girls who bareback because the reality is they all do at some point even if it’s just a husband, boyfriend or fuck buddy.

Who’d have thought that Xenia was a barebacker? She had shown nothing for years to suggest she was.

[Juankerr]

I wouldn’t actively seek it and the girl would have to be especially alluring to tempt me and so far I’ve never seen an open barebacker who would tempt me. All punting is risky, it’s probably safer having a fully covered punt with a barebacker than having OWO with a normal girl, as even if she doesn’t do B.B. that doesn’t mean you can’t catch anything from oral. It’s about what degrees of risk you are willing to take.

It does however make me smile when I see people losing a gasket over girls who bareback because the reality is they all do at some point even if it’s just a husband, boyfriend or fuck buddy.

Who’d have thought that Xenia was a barebacker? She had shown nothing for years to suggest she was.

Most punters would realise that all WG's do bareback with someone at some point be it a husband, boyfriend or fuck buddy, just like most punters do with wives, girlfriends or a fuckbuddy.

What gets people losing a gasket is seeing that WG's openly advertising bareback for punters, that is an entirely different situation IMO. 

[Ming]

I wouldn’t actively seek it and the girl would have to be especially alluring to tempt me and so far I’ve never seen an open barebacker who would tempt me. All punting is risky, it’s probably safer having a fully covered punt with a barebacker than having OWO with a normal girl, as even if she doesn’t do B.B. that doesn’t mean you can’t catch anything from oral. It’s about what degrees of risk you are willing to take.

It does however make me smile when I see people losing a gasket over girls who bareback because the reality is they all do at some point even if it’s just a husband, boyfriend or fuck buddy.

Who’d have thought that Xenia was a barebacker? She had shown nothing for years to suggest she was.

All sex is about taking a risk, but I think most would agree, that your above average sexually active 20 something civvy, might (and it's a BIG might) sleep with ten guys a month, your average working girl might do that in a day, and one's offering bareback will happily let each one of them slide in raw and spunk up her, that's potentially 30 different viral loads a month.

Yes, you are probably right that most will be barebacking a significant other, maybe one or possibly two, not thirty different ones a month. If you are happy to have OWO and RO with a 30 a month good looking spunk bucket then I hope you aren't in a relationship and you have life insurance.......

Ming 

[Odd Job]

I did say it would be fully covered.

[Beamer]

I did say it would be fully covered.

No OWO or RO?

[Ming]

I did say it would be fully covered.

A quick flick through your reviews indicate that whenever given the option you enjoy OWO, RO and kissing!

I find it difficult to believe that you would resist if a good looking BB'er who you had just paid was offering OWO, RO and kissing, "no, sorry, I am a safety guy, I just want to fuck you"..........nah, don't believe that scenario.

Ming 

[Littlefoot]

No way would I book a prossie advertising bb. She could be bbacking 6 7 possibly 8 punters per day, all spunking up her!  And the type of punters she will attract will be going round punting all prossies that offer bb. it's a dirty world I wouldn't go near!

[Odd Job]

A quick flick through your reviews indicate that whenever given the option you enjoy OWO, RO and kissing!

I find it difficult to believe that you would resist if a good looking BB'er who you had just paid was offering OWO, RO and kissing, "no, sorry, I am a safety guy, I just want to fuck you"..........nah, don't believe that scenario.

Ming 

That’s up to you to believe it or not. It would have to be an exceptional girl who appealed and yes I would play it safe. I’d stick to a 15 or 30 min booking. Kissing I’d do, but not TO or OWO.

[Beamer]

A quick flick through your reviews indicate that whenever given the option you enjoy OWO, RO and kissing!

I find it difficult to believe that you would resist if a good looking BB'er who you had just paid was offering OWO, RO and kissing, "no, sorry, I am a safety guy, I just want to fuck you"..........nah, don't believe that scenario.

Ming 

Agree Ming.
Punter is delusional and unbelievable. 

[Odd Job]

Agree Ming.
Punter is delusional and unbelievable. 

It’s highly unlikely I’d ever see somebody who would tempt me so it’s all a bit theoretical.

[Michelle Independent]

Seems like theres quite a few of the popular girls that have serviced this dude. Or am i reading the whole thing wrong? I can see Michelle Independant, Emily Blonde, Isla Brooks, Milk Snowdrop those i recognise (only by name and have not had a meet with any of them).
Although I havent been punting with AW girls too often in the last few years, it wouldnt surprise me if WGs succumb to these sorts.

You can clearly see I have cancelled on him. And thank fuck for that as I wasn’t aware at that time!

[Ming]

You can clearly see I have cancelled on him. And thank fuck for that as I wasn’t aware at that time!

I don't think anyone was MI, bit of a shock for all of us.

Let's hope the word get's around about him...

Ming 

[Isla_Brooks]

Given the date of the feedback, I think quite a few of us have dodged this bullet, thankfully! I was due to see this individual about two months ago and I'm soooooooo glad he cancelled now that I know this! Luckily for me, I haven't seen him for ages

[suttonporksword]

i wonder if I am the only thicko that having opened the link to the girls aw profile above treated it as if it were here page and trying to see her other photos....

[Retep64]

No you are not 

[azrael]

Thing is as well the girls that are not active could  be Bare backers.

+1, thats what has me worried also. 

[Roadster]

There seems to me to be a lot of whistling in the dark going on here.

Think about it fellas. 

It is obviously safer to have bareback sex with 100 "clean" people than it is to have safe sex with one infected one.  Condoms can break.

Most people have bareback sex.  You can't produce children without doing and there are lots of them about.

Many on here have wives and/or girlfriends.  Most of those wives/girlfriends  don't know that there husbands/boyfriends are punting.  It is clearly possible to lie effectively to a partner, ergo it is equally possible to be effectively lied to by a partner.  No one knows for sure who their regular partners have had sex with.

Everyone who has bareback sex with another effectively has sex with that individuals entire sexual history.

Therefore, no one knows for absolute certain about anyone else's sexual history or STI status.

If you get yourself tested you can know your own status and that will then be a private matter between yourself and your clinic.

YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL WHO HAS AN STI AND WHO DOESN'T.

There is no such thing as "Safe Sex".  There is only "Safer Sex".

It is clear that anyone, (particularly anyone who punts, but actually anyone),  who is not totally aware of that fact, and is not therefore behaving as if every sexual partner potentially had an STI and then assessing the risks/benefits from there is an idiot.

It is my opinion that anyone who is not regularly getting themselves tested is an idiot.

Risk management is about firstly understanding risk and secondly taking appropriate action.  What appropriate action actually is a matter of personal choice and is very probably different proposition for a civvy, a punter and a WG.

Personally I am happy to BB with my wife and my GF.  I am reasonably certain that they, (and I), are disease free.

Would not hire anyone who offered BB.  I make judgements in advance, on arrival and during punts (I have left mid punt in the past), as to the cleanliness (for want of a better word), of any WG I see.  I am happy to get OWO and perform RO on the WG's that I see.  I would not have unprotected vaginal sex, nor would I have anal sex, protected or otherwise with a WG.  I would have nothing inserted ito me that wasn't covered.

I get tested very regularly.

I have punted for around 40 years and have not yet acquired an STI.

Managing risk is a good thing.  Sharing information in order to enable us all to manage risk is a good thing.

Witch hunts of people who assess risk substantially differently, (AKA "the terminally stupid"), not so much.  (The best that you can hope for from that is that they become much better at hiding their choices from the rest of us).

Just my opinion.

[kingfap1]

I wouldn’t actively seek it and the girl would have to be especially alluring to tempt me and so far I’ve never seen an open barebacker who would tempt me. All punting is risky, it’s probably safer having a fully covered punt with a barebacker than having OWO with a normal girl, as even if she doesn’t do B.B. that doesn’t mean you can’t catch anything from oral. It’s about what degrees of risk you are willing to take.

It does however make me smile when I see people losing a gasket over girls who bareback because the reality is they all do at some point even if it’s just a husband, boyfriend or fuck buddy.

Who’d have thought that Xenia was a barebacker? She had shown nothing for years to suggest she was.

Xenia? which Xenia.... I was thinking about booking a Xenia very soon (different spelling).....I wont if she turns out to be a BB

[Beamer]

There seems to me to be a lot of whistling in the dark going on here.

Think about it fellas. 

It is obviously safer to have bareback sex with 100 "clean" people than it is to have safe sex with one infected one.  Condoms can break.

Most people have bareback sex.  You can't produce children without doing and there are lots of them about.

Many on here have wives and/or girlfriends.  Most of those wives/girlfriends  don't know that there husbands/boyfriends are punting.  It is clearly possible to lie effectively to a partner, ergo it is equally possible to be effectively lied to by a partner.  No one knows for sure who their regular partners have had sex with.

Everyone who has bareback sex with another effectively has sex with that individuals entire sexual history.

Therefore, no one knows for absolute certain about anyone else's sexual history or STI status.

If you get yourself tested you can know your own status and that will then be a private matter between yourself and your clinic.

YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL WHO HAS AN STI AND WHO DOESN'T.

There is no such thing as "Safe Sex".  There is only "Safer Sex".

It is clear that anyone, (particularly anyone who punts, but actually anyone),  who is not totally aware of that fact, and is not therefore behaving as if every sexual partner potentially had an STI and then assessing the risks/benefits from there is an idiot.

It is my opinion that anyone who is not regularly getting themselves tested is an idiot.

Risk management is about firstly understanding risk and secondly taking appropriate action.  What appropriate action actually is a matter of personal choice and is very probably different proposition for a civvy, a punter and a WG.

Personally I am happy to BB with my wife and my GF.  I am reasonably certain that they, (and I), are disease free.

Would not hire anyone who offered BB.  I make judgements in advance, on arrival and during punts (I have left mid punt in the past), as to the cleanliness (for want of a better word), of any WG I see.  I am happy to get OWO and perform RO on the WG's that I see.  I would not have unprotected vaginal sex, nor would I have anal sex, protected or otherwise with a WG.  I would have nothing inserted ito me that wasn't covered.

I get tested very regularly.

I have punted for around 40 years and have not yet acquired an STI.

Managing risk is a good thing.  Sharing information in order to enable us all to manage risk is a good thing.

Witch hunts of people who assess risk substantially differently, (AKA "the terminally stupid"), not so much.  (The best that you can hope for from that is that they become much better at hiding their choices from the rest of us).

Just my opinion.

Great response Roadster - wise words 

[Odd Job]

Xenia? which Xenia.... I was thinking about booking a Xenia very soon (different spelling).....I wont if she turns out to be a BB

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=149982.msg1639875#msg1639875

[Ming]

There seems to me to be a lot of whistling in the dark going on here.

Think about it fellas. 

It is obviously safer to have bareback sex with 100 "clean" people than it is to have safe sex with one infected one.  Condoms can break.

Most people have bareback sex.  You can't produce children without doing and there are lots of them about.

Many on here have wives and/or girlfriends.  Most of those wives/girlfriends  don't know that there husbands/boyfriends are punting.  It is clearly possible to lie effectively to a partner, ergo it is equally possible to be effectively lied to by a partner.  No one knows for sure who their regular partners have had sex with.

Everyone who has bareback sex with another effectively has sex with that individuals entire sexual history.

Therefore, no one knows for absolute certain about anyone else's sexual history or STI status.

If you get yourself tested you can know your own status and that will then be a private matter between yourself and your clinic.

YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL WHO HAS AN STI AND WHO DOESN'T.

There is no such thing as "Safe Sex".  There is only "Safer Sex".

It is clear that anyone, (particularly anyone who punts, but actually anyone),  who is not totally aware of that fact, and is not therefore behaving as if every sexual partner potentially had an STI and then assessing the risks/benefits from there is an idiot.

It is my opinion that anyone who is not regularly getting themselves tested is an idiot.

Risk management is about firstly understanding risk and secondly taking appropriate action.  What appropriate action actually is a matter of personal choice and is very probably different proposition for a civvy, a punter and a WG.

Personally I am happy to BB with my wife and my GF.  I am reasonably certain that they, (and I), are disease free.

Would not hire anyone who offered BB.  I make judgements in advance, on arrival and during punts (I have left mid punt in the past), as to the cleanliness (for want of a better word), of any WG I see.  I am happy to get OWO and perform RO on the WG's that I see.  I would not have unprotected vaginal sex, nor would I have anal sex, protected or otherwise with a WG.  I would have nothing inserted ito me that wasn't covered.

I get tested very regularly.

I have punted for around 40 years and have not yet acquired an STI.

Managing risk is a good thing.  Sharing information in order to enable us all to manage risk is a good thing.

Witch hunts of people who assess risk substantially differently, (AKA "the terminally stupid"), not so much.  (The best that you can hope for from that is that they become much better at hiding their choices from the rest of us).

Just my opinion.

You have an eloquent way of summing things up succinctly.

Couldn't agree more, except, I hope they DON'T "become much better at hiding their choices from the rest of us" as the "terminally stupid" as have been revealed on this thread, allow us to know who they have seen and thus who to avoid.

Ming 

[Roadster]

Couldn't agree more, except, I hope they DON'T "become much better at hiding their choices from the rest of us" as the "terminally stupid" as have been revealed on this thread, allow us to know who they have seen and thus who to avoid.

I think my point was that turning up the heat on people like that is more likely to make them hide their stupid than change their stupid ... so our roasting them is ... not smart.

 

[Ming]

I think my point was that turning up the heat on people like that is more likely to make them hide their stupid than change their stupid ... so our roasting them is ... not smart.

 

Fair point, but then they are terminally stupid as well as being odd and lazy .........

Ming