There seems a prejudice against girls who have bareback in their likes list on AW on here. Just to clarify, I don't mean the ones who advertise it as a significant part of the services they offer - Creampie Kyrie being an example who probably quite rightly gets torn to shreds whenever she's mentioned on here - or even those who put something more low key up on their profiles, listing it as a paid extra for example - but girls who have it listed just as one of many things that they would do. It's common knowledge that oral without carries a risk of transmission of infection, especially deep throat and presumably therefore any good oral with any depth to it, but not only does a mention of OWO generally not attract any comments pointing out any danger on threads - certainly not to the extent that BB whips up a storm anyway - but some UKP members have even mentioned in reviews and the like that they consider it to be such an important part of a punt that they have either had one ruined because the girl wouldn't do it, or that they haven't or wouldn't book a girl because they don't do it.
As for me, I never have, and would never put my todger in a WG's clunge without a coat on, I never have oral without protection either, and I never go down on a punt either, even though in my personal life I'd probably rather do that than have sex if I'm honest, so when I search for a potential meet on AW bareback being listed as a like doesn't bother me at all as long as it isn't discussed in a high profile way on their main page. Even then, if a girl who did (except if it was the likes of Kyrie who it almost seems compulsory with) was the right price and in the right place that probably wouldn't concern me either.
So (yes there is a point I am meandering towards) why is it such an issue? If, like myself, one covers up all the time it shouldn't be a problem playing at Winkies and Whatnots with protection, but if one gets a lady to play Fellatio's Pink Trombone Concerto without any precautions then the risk is possibly (I'm not a doctor so feel free to bombard me with medical stats should you wish) as great, or as there is even a school of thought that as ladies hoohahs are designed for relatively rough treatment in the bodies scheme of things and are therefore quite tough and can withstand a bit of punishment, whereas the mouth (which is more prone to penetrative injuries such as ulcers and biting the inside of cheeks) is less hardy, so the risk could be even greater as the likelihood of direct exchange of bodily fluids and/or blood is higher, and yet any discussion of the risks from oral only crops up once in a blue moon.
Anyhoo, that's that particular blue touch paper lit, any thoughts?
