The principle of reviews is that it is up to the reviewer to decide what they disclose. Fucking in a massage shop is an UTC activity so if it was or wasn't done with a condom is certainly UTC. I have no interest in barebacking shop girls but I think by insisting that info is disclosed will only encourage those who are seeking bareback. I have never been to San Ling nor after reading the numerous reviews will I ever go. If a UKP member does go I think there is enough info about barebacking that they will know the risks. Rather than bearbaiting someone who has taken the time to write a review I think its better to thank them for their contribution and let them continue writing reviews and not make them fearful of negative abuse.
SRD, I was not bearbaiting and indeed had no intention of slinging any shade his way if he had admitted to indulging.
Your point about SLSC does not hold for reviews of establishments or SPs that are not known to offer BB. And my previous point to OP would thus be valid.
Sure a punter might choose to keep a UTC service to himself, especially if convinced/deluded he's getting something "exclusive", but as we've learned from numerous reviews there are more than a few passing 1-off encounters where punters have reported cases of committed barebacking or momentary slipping in with SPs little known to this community.
Pretending BB doesn't exist by not encouraging honesty in reviews doesn't make the problem go away. Sure we all presume some risk and use protection, maybe refrain from some acts with SPs (kissing, RO, OWO, rimming, etc.) but there are those who would prefer to avoid known BBers entirely, and they are not served by hiding the practice.
Even updates on known entities is valid as some may withdraw from the practice.
So thanks to OP for the review and veiled honesty.
