Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: London barebackers blacklist  (Read 3365 times)

Offline FCB

Don't know if is a useful or stupid idea?

Reading this thread again https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=105541.0
where it was pointed out a few days ago  that a WG had unprotected sex listed but she  has since that post was made removed it from her enjoys list, it has crossed my mind making a list of links of WGs that currently have Bareback/unprotected sex in their enjoys list, so if in future a WG removes it,  searches about her will lead to this thread alerting members that she used to offer bareback and might still do it on the sly.

The obvious problem is that punters stupid enough to seek barebackers would find such a list useful.
To minimise that problem list should only include in my opinion the numerical link and nothing else, no info about location, nationality or anything, just a long list of numerical links in the hope that is no more useful to bareback punters than a search on Adultwork.

Is it worth the effort or I shouldn't bother?


Offline Belgarion


tristen92

  • Guest
Not on AW anymore but put Olivia from Acton, Colindale, Queensbury on that list for anyone that's seen her

mrhappypants

  • Guest
Not on AW anymore but put Olivia from Acton, Colindale, Queensbury on that list for anyone that's seen her

This allegation has been made before by another WG - can you substantiate?

tristen92

  • Guest
Common knowledge on here and has been mentioned to me by several W/Gs

cockneybstrd

  • Guest
Once HP is unbanned he will be all over this like a rash or a dose of crabs.

Offline Brazilian Martian

Fucking scary a majority of them are British I would of expected the first list to be made up of romanian skanks to.borrow the phrase from JRC  :hi:

Type_O_Negative

  • Guest
Not on AW anymore but put Olivia from Acton, Colindale, Queensbury on that list for anyone that's seen her

Did you bareback her? So you know she does it  :unknown:

Type_O_Negative

  • Guest
Common knowledge on here and has been mentioned to me by several W/Gs

Common knowledge? So where is this common knowledge here? Could you also share with us the names of these WG who told you?

Offline FCB

Fucking scary a majority of them are British I would of expected the first list to be made up of romanian skanks to.borrow the phrase from JRC  :hi:

The fact that British seem overrepresented doesn't mean anything because to reduce chances of posting same link 2, 3 or more times by mistake my initial searches where done by nationality + bareback and unprotected sex in enjoys, that's why British are overrepresented since British was the second nationality I searched (Spanish was 1st I checked).
Since then I changed idea and I'll do it Borough by Borough instead of by nationality.

Offline lewishamguy

Did you bareback her? So you know she does it  :unknown:

A few months back he started an STD allegation thread about North West London WGs which Admin didn't approve and has been deleted. I think Admin made the right decision.

:sarcastic:
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 12:40:05 pm by lewishamguy »

Type_O_Negative

  • Guest
A few months back he started an STD allegation thread about North West London WGs which Admin didn't approve and has been deleted. I think Admin made the right decision.

:sarcastic:

So here we go again!

Offline FCB

Not on AW anymore but put Olivia from Acton, Colindale, Queensbury on that list for anyone that's seen her
Only WGs with an AW profile with Bareback or unprotected sex in enjoys list at the time the post is made.
Otherwise there's a risk this thread could be used for personal vendettas.

tristen92

  • Guest
No worries, I'll keep such info to myself in the future. Lesson learnt, rest assured.

Offline Brazilian Martian


The fact that British seem overrepresented doesn't mean anything because to reduce chances of posting same link 2, 3 or more times by mistake my initial searches where done by nationality + bareback and unprotected sex in enjoys, that's why British are overrepresented since British was the second nationality I searched (Spanish was 1st I checked).
Since then I changed idea and I'll do it Borough by Borough instead of by nationality.
Spanish being the first i would probably guess most of those Spanish barebackers are Romanians or Hungarians as they always like to say they're Brazilian or Spanish

Offline The_Don

Common knowledge on here and has been mentioned to me by several W/Gs



Unless your with a W/G 24/7?

You don't know what they are, truly doing   and why.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 01:28:59 pm by The_Don »

Offline FCB

Spanish being the first i would probably guess most of those Spanish barebackers are Romanians or Hungarians as they always like to say they're Brazilian or Spanish
In London 2 Spanish only offering it if I remember well, one only had Bareback listed the other Bareback and unprotected sex.

Offline NIK

How many more times do I have to say that either punters or prossies 'blacklisting' each other for bb is complete bollox.
Ultimately no one knows who has done what with whom.
The only thing you can do to be relatively safe is use protection.
To be even safer don't fucking punt.  :angry:

Offline FCB

Once HP is unbanned he will be all over this like a rash or a dose of crabs.
Yeah, most likely

Gspotter

  • Guest
How many more times do I have to say that either punters or prossies 'blacklisting' each other for bb is complete bollox.
Ultimately no one knows who has done what with whom.
The only thing you can do to be relatively safe is use protection.
To be even safer don't fucking punt.  :angry:

Fully agree!
Having bareback on their list just implies it may be available to a customer.

1st point
In many cases, the WG has bareback listed but may not actually offer it. She may tick it just to attract punters (yes there are some who WANT bareback) and say it's not available if someone shows up asking for it. Or she may be randomly ticking everything in sight. Just try searching under 'pregnant' and sure enough you will find many WGs who have never been pregnant.
You could call this type of issue a 'false positive'.

2nd point
You have no knowledge about what a WG who does not offer bareback does in her private life. Did she bareback Sergey just before you? And did he then say, don't waste your time having a shower, get back to work and smear my cum over this low life punter?
You could call this type of issue a 'false negative'.

3rd point
If you see a WG who barebacks but have protected sex, are you in any significant risk? I'd say your chances of catching something are higher from unprotected oral sex which most of us enjoy.

I am not looking for barebackers but for the reasons above I think a list like this isn't that useful. Those who are paranoid can always check an aw profile before they decide to see the WG.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 05:42:00 pm by Gspotter »

mrhappypants

  • Guest
I'll keep such info to myself in the future.

Given you have not provided supportive evidence, corroboration or feel able to identify your sources then that might be wise.

Dave
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 08:56:10 pm by mrhappypants »

Offline paul_2407

Fully agree!
Having bareback on their list just implies it may be available to a customer.

1st point
In many cases, the WG has bareback listed but may not actually offer it. She may tick it just to attract punters (yes there are some who WANT bareback) and say it's not available if someone shows up asking for it. Or she may be randomly ticking everything in sight. Just try searching under 'pregnant' and sure enough you will find many WGs who have never been pregnant.
You could call this type of issue a 'false positive'.

2nd point
You have no knowledge about what a WG who does not offer bareback does in her private life. Did she bareback Sergey just before you? And did he then say, don't waste your time having a shower, get back to work and smear my cum over this low life punter?
You could call this type of issue a 'false negative'.

3rd point
If you see a WG who barebacks but have protected sex, are you in any significant risk? I'd say your chances of catching something are higher from unprotected oral sex which most of us enjoy.

I am not looking for barebackers but for the reasons above I think a list like this isn't that useful. Those who are paranoid can always check an aw profile before they decide to see the WG.

All valid, but I think the point of this thread (if I can distil it into 2 sentences) is to flag any WGs who used to explicitly offer bareback to customers, and then removed the service from their list of likes. This may bring about higher risk than a WG barebacking in her personal life and with Sergei as the number of different partners is arguably greater.

That's all really...
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 09:49:01 am by paul_b_1977 »

Speedy12

  • Guest
Don't know if is a useful or stupid idea?

Reading this thread again https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=105541.0
where it was pointed out a few days ago  that a WG had unprotected sex listed but she  has since that post was made removed it from her enjoys list, it has crossed my mind making a list of links of WGs that currently have Bareback/unprotected sex in their enjoys list, so if in future a WG removes it,  searches about her will lead to this thread alerting members that she used to offer bareback and might still do it on the sly.

The obvious problem is that punters stupid enough to seek barebackers would find such a list useful.
To minimise that problem list should only include in my opinion the numerical link and nothing else, no info about location, nationality or anything, just a long list of numerical links in the hope that is no more useful to bareback punters than a search on Adultwork.

Is it worth the effort or I shouldn't bother?

Erm, have you nothing better to do?

Offline zulu-lance

Don't know if is a useful or stupid idea?

Reading this thread again https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=105541.0
where it was pointed out a few days ago  that a WG had unprotected sex listed but she  has since that post was made removed it from her enjoys list, it has crossed my mind making a list of links of WGs that currently have Bareback/unprotected sex in their enjoys list, so if in future a WG removes it,  searches about her will lead to this thread alerting members that she used to offer bareback and might still do it on the sly.

The obvious problem is that punters stupid enough to seek barebackers would find such a list useful.
To minimise that problem list should only include in my opinion the numerical link and nothing else, no info about location, nationality or anything, just a long list of numerical links in the hope that is no more useful to bareback punters than a search on Adultwork.

Is it worth the effort or I shouldn't bother?

Thinly veiled I love to BB and this is the potential list of suppliers who shall indulge me  :D
The OP seems to be taking a very dim view of punters search patterns and  choices on AW and elsewhere, and anyway how does he know for sure if a prossie does/doesn't BB, no matter what's listed on profile.  Don't see the point of this rather unproductive post, thanks but no thanks!

Offline FCB

Fully agree!
Having bareback on their list just implies it may be available to a customer.

1st point
In many cases, the WG has bareback listed but may not actually offer it. She may tick it just to attract punters (yes there are some who WANT bareback) and say it's not available if someone shows up asking for it. Or she may be randomly ticking everything in sight. Just try searching under 'pregnant' and sure enough you will find many WGs who have never been pregnant.
You could call this type of issue a 'false positive'.

2nd point
You have no knowledge about what a WG who does not offer bareback does in her private life. Did she bareback Sergey just before you? And did he then say, don't waste your time having a shower, get back to work and smear my cum over this low life punter?
You could call this type of issue a 'false negative'.

3rd point
If you see a WG who barebacks but have protected sex, are you in any significant risk? I'd say your chances of catching something are higher from unprotected oral sex which most of us enjoy.

I am not looking for barebackers but for the reasons above I think a list like this isn't that useful. Those who are paranoid can always check an aw profile before they decide to see the WG.

Thank you Gspotter for your post.

I've been thinking about it and I think that on your 1st point it could be added the case that with so many profiles swapped, the profile of a barebacker WG could in future be passed to a new WG that don't offer it, she'd remove bb from enjoys  but would be unfairly branded a barebacker by the list I was planning to create.

The list idea clearly has a lot more flaws that I initially realised. Thank you for pointing it out.

I won't be wasting time and effort in something with such limited usefulness.