Raw Cum Whore - Nr South Croydon

[smiths]

what the actual fuck OP. You know like 500 guys have cummed in her bareback, she is probably loaded with HIV. She's like a fucking bomb.

500, I bet its infinity more than that. She is one ugly cunt.

[last_days_of_logan]

See the threads grown a bit

[punther]

glad to hear it x

ER...this is a genuine question and i'd appreciate it if you answered it  as personally i think i may learn something new and it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on it...

could you explain how you rationalise swallow and why you deem it to be safe?

[TailSeeker]

ER...this is a genuine question and i'd appreciate it if you answered it  as personally i think i may learn something new and it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on it...

could you explain how you rationalise swallow and why you deem it to be safe?

Not ER, but the risk of giving OWO for STDs is quite low, all us working girls gamble with it, the mains ones we risk are chlamydia and syphilis. So if we do it we get tested very frequently. And back off if we're under the weather.

The mouth if you have a good immune system is very inhospitable to STDs. Transmission numbers are very low, less than 2% for the main STDs.

[punther]

Not ER, but the risk of giving OWO for STDs is quite low, all us working girls gamble with it, the mains ones we risk are chlamydia and syphilis. So if we do it we get tested very frequently. And back off if we're under the weather.

The mouth if you have a good immune system is very inhospitable to STDs. Transmission numbers are very low, less than 2% for the main STDs.

thanks for your answer tali

could you give your opinion on the topic at hand

from your point of view based on what you know about STD transmission,  as a WG do you believe OWO from yourself( or any other WG who does not BB) is safer than OWO from a WG who does BB?

[EnglishRebecca121]

ER...this is a genuine question and i'd appreciate it if you answered it  as personally i think i may learn something new and it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on it...

could you explain how you rationalise swallow and why you deem it to be safe?

think tailseeker has it bang on

owo is much lower risk then bareback plus I am not going to get pregent by owo!! amazed how many presume all wgs are on the pill,,, imagine finding out you got a wg pregant!!

[punther]

think tailseeker has it bang on

owo is much lower risk then bareback plus I am not going to get pregent by owo!! amazed how many presume all wgs are on the pill,,, imagine finding out you got a wg pregant!!

of course owo is lower risk than bareback vaginal penetrative sex....

the question is about receiving oral

is OWO from a WG who does not BB  safer than receiving OWO from a WG that BB

im trying to understand why you believe a blowjob from yourself is safer than a blowjob from raw cum whore kirie(or any other wg who happens to BB)  based on facts about how sti's spread via oral sex....?

[TailSeeker]

thanks for your answer tali

could you give your opinion on the topic at hand

from your point of view based on what you know about STD transmission,  as a WG do you believe OWO from yourself( or any other WG who does not BB) is safer than OWO from a WG who does BB?

There is no difference. The mouth isn't magically connected to the vagina.

Oral I'm less worried about, I've been doing this for over a year and not caught anything, and my clinic even swabs my eye balls every 3 weeks as I do facials.

If punther went to book me, I'd probably have no clue, still offer OWO, covered for penetration like all the rest. Admittedly, I would avoid a man who books women who openly advertise doing bb, if he reviewed them on AW. But that is more concern that he will give me shit about refusing to drop the condom.

[smiths]

Not ER, but the risk of giving OWO for STDs is quite low, all us working girls gamble with it, the mains ones we risk are chlamydia and syphilis. So if we do it we get tested very frequently. And back off if we're under the weather.

The mouth if you have a good immune system is very inhospitable to STDs. Transmission numbers are very low, less than 2% for the main STDs.

How on earth do you know as fact who gets tested on a regular basis and who doesn't apart from yourself and maybe WGs you know. Answer is you don't, this we is forum WG propaganda I have been reading for a decade on punting forums. I don't believe most adults including WGs and punters do get tested on a regular basis, can i prove it, no, can it be disproved, no.

You cant speak for other WGs you don't know in reality so there is no we about it. In punting I have no idea of the actual risk I am taking with a WG as I don't know what she has been doing and with whom, same as with civvies. I know I could get infected at any time, that's the risks punting holds. I take the risks I am prepared to take for the rewards on offer as I see them.

I also don't just blindly believe stats and figures around infections either, who conducted the research and who was involved in it, it wasn't me that's for sure.

[punther]

There is no difference. The mouth isn't magically connected to the vagina.

Oral I'm less worried about, I've been doing this for over a year and not caught anything, and my clinic even swabs my eye balls every 3 weeks as I do facials.

If punther went to book me, I'd probably have no clue, still offer OWO, covered for penetration like all the rest. Admittedly, I would avoid a man who books women who openly advertise doing bb, if he reviewed them on AW. But that is more concern that he will give me shit about refusing to drop the condom.

 

cheers tali 

this is one of the main points ive been trying to make to all this time

you'd think its obvious but some people just can't see the obvious(or choose not to see the obvious, as it suits them)

[Blazed]

500, I bet its infinity more than that. She is one ugly cunt.

+1

She has been doing this for years. She probably gets through 500 cocks a year.

5,000 would genuinely be more accurate than the 500 originally suggested.

[Lilywhite]

As someone who did take a 'clap to the mouth' it's more than possible and the fact that 2 providers came out and said they has oral stis last year (different ones) I'd say owo isn't failsafe. Roll the dice, take your chance but unless you know for sure you're safe then it's best not to judge others. 

[smiths]

As someone who did take a 'clap to the mouth' it's more than possible and the fact that 2 providers came out and said they has oral stis last year (different ones) I'd say owo isn't failsafe. Roll the dice, take your chance but unless you know for sure you're safe then it's best not to judge others. 

Of course OWO isn't failsafe, anyone who says it is is clueless or worse in my view.

[smiths]

+1

She has been doing this for years. She probably gets through 500 cocks a year.

5,000 would genuinely be more accurate than the 500 originally suggested.

I was thinking about 5000 myself as a very rough estimate, she also offers or did BB sex parties so that's multiple skanks cream pies and dogging which is the same, all dependent how many actually turn up obviously.

[punther]

As someone who did take a 'clap to the mouth' it's more than possible and the fact that 2 providers came out and said they has oral stis last year (different ones) I'd say owo isn't failsafe. Roll the dice, take your chance but unless you know for sure you're safe then it's best not to judge others. 

 

 you tell um guuurl 

[TailSeeker]

Of course OWO isn't failsafe, anyone who says it is is clueless or worse in my view.

OWO is certainly a risk for us providers, transfer rates the other way are uncertain as studies repeatedly have the confounding factor of condomless sex. Outside of just general vaginal/anal diseases there hasn't been any studies on sex workers.

But the studies of oral do but the burden on the mouth rather than the cock. Annoying as fuck as not all individuals with an STD have obvious symptoms. But it's the gamble we take providing it.

[Kev40ish]

As someone who did take a 'clap to the mouth' it's more than possible and the fact that 2 providers came out and said they has oral stis last year (different ones) I'd say owo isn't failsafe. Roll the dice, take your chance but unless you know for sure you're safe then it's best not to judge others. 

But would you knowingly want to see someone who had been to see her?
Your quite happy to see people knowingly who see barebackers?

[Kev40ish]

OWO is certainly a risk for us providers, transfer rates the other way are uncertain as studies repeatedly have the confounding factor of condomless sex. Outside of just general vaginal/anal diseases there hasn't been any studies on sex workers.

But the studies of oral do but the burden on the mouth rather than the cock. Annoying as fuck as not all individuals with an STD have obvious symptoms. But it's the gamble we take providing it.

If you knew someone had been to see the SP would you take the risk?
You are quite happy knowingly to see people who see barebackers?

[punther]

If you knew someone had been to see the SP would you take the risk?
You are quite happy knowingly to see people who see barebackers?

you need to make your question more specific

you need to make clear what they have gone to see the barebacker for

are you asking if they have gone to see a barebacker for

1. bareback vaginal sex

2. unprotected oral sex

3. protected vaginal sex

[TailSeeker]

If you knew someone had been to see the SP would you take the risk?

Maybe if they were getting tested on the regular and had taken treatment. If they hadn't a clue about it, not a chance in hell. Depending on when he found out, I might tell him to delay a booking (make sure it's actually clear/doesn't have it). Which could be as long as 6 weeks, if he's asymptomatic.

Granted people will lie, and gents will pretend they get tested more than they do. But it's much the same for civvy dating. I'd bring it up on a phone chat not email/text so they can't prepare a response.

I wouldn't let him to a facial, as STDs in the eye can lead to blindness. Not willing to risk that no matter what. Would just ensure my oral health is robust, (no bleeding gums) and I'm in a good immune period.

Edit: I would not see someone who had openly seen barebackers, this is primarily because I suspect they would try to bully me into dropping the condom, or try to stealth me (remove the condom in a position I might not notice).

Granted, I've never seen someone who openly sees a barebacker, but have seen punters who try to bully me into dropping the condom. And they get a quick hard boot out. With me then reporting them on SAAFE for trying it.

[Kev40ish]

you need to make your question more specific

you need to make clear what they have gone to see the barebacker for

are you asking if they have gone to see a barebacker for

1. bareback vaginal sex

2. unprotected oral sex


3. protected vaginal sex

That’s the thing they just don’t know what the OP actually did, all they know is they took the risk to see a high risk SP.

That’s all they can judge it on.

That’s all any of us can base the risk on.

You are, to most sensible WGs a high risk and they wouldn’t want to knowingly see you, without clear test results. Yes you can inflict yourself on them against their knowledge, but what does that say about you?

[punther]

Maybe if they were getting tested on the regular and had taken treatment. If they hadn't a clue about it, not a chance in hell. Depending on when he found out, I might tell him to delay a booking (make sure it's actually clear/doesn't have it). Which could be as long as 6 weeks, if he's asymptomatic.

Granted people will lie, and gents will pretend they get tested more than they do. But it's much the same for civvy dating. I'd bring it up on a phone chat not email/text so they can't prepare a response.

I wouldn't let him to a facial, as STDs in the eye can lead to blindness. Not willing to risk that no matter what. Would just ensure my oral health is robust, (no bleeding gums) and I'm in a good immune period.

Edit: I would not see someone who had openly seen barebackers, this is primarily because I suspect they would try to bully me into dropping the condom, or try to stealth me (remove the condom in a position I might not notice).

Granted, I've never seen someone who openly sees a barebacker, but have seen punters who try to bully me into dropping the condom. And they get a quick hard boot out. With me then reporting them on SAAFE for trying it.

Your response to the question he asked reads more like you are assuming the person already has an sti

From what you have written, logically you should ask every punter to get tested before they see you as you say "granted people will lie" so based on this you should be as weary of the non-openly visiting BB escort punter

The only way such a question can make sense and illicit a proper thought out answer is if a baseline is established, the baseline being that the punter is honest about what he does and what he wants

so what would be your answer in this scenario

The Punter

"all wg's are the same to me...a wg can advertise bareback, hardsports, dinner dates, footjobs....none of these things interest me so I don't engage in them

i see them just for the services I am interested in

i see them for unprotected oral sex   and/or protected vaginal sex with a condom

i have no interest in bareback penetrative vaginal sex and the only unprotected sexual activity I engage in and am interested in is oral sex"

1) would you see this punter?

2) if you would not see him why?

[punther]

That’s the thing they just don’t know what the OP actually did, all they know is they took the risk to see a high risk SP.

That’s all they can judge it on.

That’s all any of us can base the risk on.

You are, to most sensible WGs a high risk and they wouldn’t want to knowingly see you, without clear test results. Yes you can inflict yourself on them against their knowledge, but what does that say about you?

responding to this would just be a repetition of what ive said already tbh, so would be easier to refer you back to what has been posted already and ask you to objectively reflect on it...if you do do so do it without your own biases and opinion influencing your thought

[punther]

i'd like to pose the same scenario to Lily and ER also

The only way such a question can make sense and illicit a proper thought out answer is if a baseline is established, the baseline being that the punter is honest about what he does and what he wants

so what would be your answer in this scenario

The Punter

"all wg's are the same to me...a wg can advertise bareback, hardsports, dinner dates, footjobs....none of these things interest me so I don't engage in them

i see them just for the services I am interested in

i see them for unprotected oral sex   and/or protected vaginal sex with a condom

i have no interest in bareback penetrative vaginal sex and the only unprotected sexual activity I engage in and am interested in is oral sex"

1) would you see this punter?

2) if you would not see him why?

[Kev40ish]

responding to this would just be a repetition of what ive said already tbh, so would be easier to refer you back to what has been posted already and ask you to objectively reflect on it...if you do do so do it without your own biases and opinion influencing your thought

I have read what has been said, It’s not easy not to be biased unfortunately.
All I can say is it’s irresponsible of someone, to knowingly go and see an SP, who they know would not want to see them.

Yes there are people out there that are irresponsible and probably bareback and see SPs but that doesn’t make it right.

[TailSeeker]

Your response to the question he asked reads more like you are assuming the person already has an sti

From what you have written, logically you should ask every punter to get tested before they see you as you say "granted people will lie" so based on this you should be as weary of the non-openly visiting BB escort punter

The only way such a question can make sense and illicit a proper thought out answer is if a baseline is established, the baseline being that the punter is honest about what he does and what he wants

so what would be your answer in this scenario

The Punter

"all wg's are the same to me...a wg can advertise bareback, hardsports, dinner dates, footjobs....none of these things interest me so I don't engage in them

i see them just for the services I am interested in

i see them for unprotected oral sex   and/or protected vaginal sex with a condom

i have no interest in bareback penetrative vaginal sex and the only unprotected sexual activity I engage in and am interested in is oral sex"

1) would you see this punter?

2) if you would not see him why?

I assume most punters do bb either with a hooker or their partner, if they see a fellow provider who does bb, that is someone at greater risk of passing along an STI (given they take 6 weeks to show up on blood work, and an optimal sampling rate of 2.4 times not ever being followed - 2.5 weeks testing). I would not see them for anything.

Someone who sees a provider who offers other services I don't (hardsports/watersports/domination/etc). I just confirm they don't want the same from me.

My issue with bb providers is the ones I know, viewed STDs as not a big issue. So I don't see someone who obviously has booked someone with that attitude. As I worry they're not getting tested frequently.

Doesn't matter what platitudes they offer, I don't want to risk someone stealthing me and having to disappear for 6+ weeks to ensure I don't have anything.

[Kev40ish]

I assume most punters do bb either with a hooker or their partner, if they see a fellow provider who does bb, that is someone at greater risk of passing along an STI (given they take 6 weeks to show up on blood work, and an optimal sampling rate of 2.4 times not ever being followed - 2.5 weeks testing). I would not see them for anything.

Someone who sees a provider who offers other services I don't (hardsports/watersports/domination/etc). I just confirm they don't want the same from me.

My issue with bb providers is the ones I know, viewed STDs as not a big issue. So I don't see someone who obviously has booked someone with that attitude. As I worry they're not getting tested frequently.

Doesn't matter what platitudes they offer, I don't want to risk someone stealthing me and having to disappear for 6+ weeks to ensure I don't have anything.

So basically you like me, think anyone who knowingly comes and sees you, who takes high risks, is a sneaky cunt to put it plainly.

[LLPunting]

I assume most punters do bb either with a hooker or their partner, if they see a fellow provider who does bb, that is someone at greater risk of passing along an STI (given they take 6 weeks to show up on blood work, and an optimal sampling rate of 2.4 times not ever being followed - 2.5 weeks testing). I would not see them for anything.

Someone who sees a provider who offers other services I don't (hardsports/watersports/domination/etc). I just confirm they don't want the same from me.

My issue with bb providers is the ones I know, viewed STDs as not a big issue. So I don't see someone who obviously has booked someone with that attitude. As I worry they're not getting tested frequently.

Doesn't matter what platitudes they offer, I don't want to risk someone stealthing me and having to disappear for 6+ weeks to ensure I don't have anything.

There's one in the eye for the much maligned "Prossie Logic"

Your pragmatism and the equivalent for punters is what we've been trying to put across to Punther, but he doesn't seem to think this is a credible practice for reducing the risk below the level he is currently taking.  That or he wants to take a minimum level of risk above what we would.

Punther, my question to you is this:

Given the choice to take 6 bullets to load a revolver you will use on yourself for a game of Russian Roulette you choose to take part in, will you take them from a bowl with 90 dummies and 10 live rounds OR one with 88 dummies and 12 lives rounds?

Of course maybe I missed Punther's statement where he assures us he doesn't kiss or give or receive unprotected oral or rimming or unbarriered water or hard sports or spitting?

[punther]

I assume most punters do bb either with a hooker or their partner, if they see a fellow provider who does bb, that is someone at greater risk of passing along an STI (given they take 6 weeks to show up on blood work, and an optimal sampling rate of 2.4 times not ever being followed - 2.5 weeks testing). I would not see them for anything.

Someone who sees a provider who offers other services I don't (hardsports/watersports/domination/etc). I just confirm they don't want the same from me.

My issue with bb providers is the ones I know, viewed STDs as not a big issue. So I don't see someone who obviously has booked someone with that attitude. As I worry they're not getting tested frequently.

Doesn't matter what platitudes they offer, I don't want to risk someone stealthing me and having to disappear for 6+ weeks to ensure I don't have anything.

you fear comes across more to do with the idea that the punter would want to bareback you as oppose to you being more likely to catch something because

1) you giving owo/having sex to/with a punter who has received owo from a barebacker is more risky therefore you are more likely to catch something from the punter

2) you giving owo/having sex to/with a punter who has  had protected penetration with a barebacker( everything being equal i.e. no condom breakages) is more risky therefore you are more likely to catch something from the punter

you come across as screwed on scientifically and i think we can both agree that there is no increased risk between the punter in this scenario and any other punter as long as those 2 conditions hold  (please correct me incase I am wrong??????)


the only thing that increases your risk is if in case 2)  a condom happens to break (then this transitions into condom breakage rates debate etc etc.)

**the fact that condoms do break does  theoretically increase the risk to you(by the the rate of condom breakage, whatever that may be)

[It would be interesting to know if the rate of condom breakage is higher or lower that the rate of STI transmission via unprotected oral sex]


The thing is this increase in risk from this punter relative to any other punter is subjective as you happen to be aware that they have visited barebacking escorts and even though you know they didn't engage in BB you are aware that condoms do break

(***)condoms can break with apparently safe providers who get up to all sorts under the table and then that same punter comes to visit you with whatever infection he may or may not have

when the next guy comes along(Punter B) just because you are not aware of his activity does not make him lower risk than the punter described in the scenario

being objective you would have to assume that he is just as high risk/equal risk

Question 1: Would you agree with the  reasoning above? , if not why?


if you do agree with the reasoning above, then do you agree with this statement:

If you would not see the punter described in the scenario then you should also not see Punter B and any other punter(stranger)

[punther]

There's one in the eye for the much maligned "Prossie Logic"

Your pragmatism and the equivalent for punters is what we've been trying to put across to Punther, but he doesn't seem to think this is a credible practice for reducing the risk below the level he is currently taking.  That or he wants to take a minimum level of risk above what we would.

Punther, my question to you is this:

Given the choice to take 6 bullets to load a revolver you will use on yourself for a game of Russian Roulette you choose to take part in, will you take them from a bowl with 90 dummies and 10 live rounds OR one with 88 dummies and 12 lives rounds?

Of course maybe I missed Punther's statement where he assures us he doesn't kiss or give or receive unprotected oral or rimming or unbarriered water or hard sports or spitting?

you're rather confused as to my involvement in this thread

...i am not trying to defend my choices......if you actually read properly you will see that I am not trying to justify myself......at all......i dont need to justify my paid for sexual encounters

what I was trying to do was:

1) to show you why you are hypocritical

2) to show you that i am nothing but a spec in this world you actively engage in and if you were as sensible as you claim to be you would not engage in the activities you currently engage in

there are many many many many many punters who do visit WGs like kirie and who all visit the same WGs you see and ejaculate into the same mouths that you subsequently go to put your lips, tongue  and uncovered penis in


It is impossible for you to give a rational explanation for why your sexual practices with prostitutes is responsible or safe in anyway

if you can please do so....

if you can't then refer to 1)

[punther]

So basically you like me, think anyone who knowingly comes and sees you, who takes high risks, is a sneaky cunt to put it plainly.

rather than throwing around childish words like cunt

make your point like an adult (if you can)

Give a rational, response to this: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=204963.msg2112821#msg2112821

[Kev40ish]

rather than throwing around childish words like cunt

make your point like an adult (if you can)

Give a rational, response to this: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=204963.msg2112821#msg2112821

I am not questioning the facts you are saying, not really interested in your logic, all I am asking is it reasonable for someone to go and see an SP, knowing that they wouldn’t want to see that particular punter due to their perceived risk.

[LLPunting]

you're rather confused as to my involvement in this thread

...i am not trying to defend my choices......if you actually read properly you will see that I am not trying to justify myself......at all......i dont need to justify my paid for sexual encounters

what I was trying to do was:

1) to show you why you are hypocritical

2) to show you that i am nothing but a spec in this world you actively engage in and if you were as sensible as you claim to be you would not engage in the activities you currently engage in

there are many many many many many punters who do visit WGs like kirie and who all visit the same WGs you see and ejaculate into the same mouths that you subsequently go to put your lips, tongue  and uncovered penis in


It is impossible for you to give a rational explanation for why your sexual practices with prostitutes is responsible or safe in anyway

if you can please do so....

if you can't then refer to 1)

Perhaps if you re-read our postings you will see that we are asking you to acknowledge that your practice is more risky than ours, all other things being equal, NEITHER is RISK-FREE.  It would seem that in your need to be right you are playing the Trump card and shifting the argument to satisfy an irrelevance and false assumptions about our position.  WE DO NOT CLAIM TO BE TOTALLY SAFE.  WE CLAIM TO BE SAFER THAN YOU AND ALL LIKE YOU, BY LIMITING OUR EXPOSURE TO RISK MORE THAN YOU DO.  Hypocracy is irrelevant to fact, taking one more trigger pull on an unfired chamber by a "speck" IS relevant to this situation.

[smiths]

A good thing about this review is under this A/W link of hers its her first on here since last September and the service merited a negative in the OPs eyes, it may put some off her as apart from being an ugly cunt which is subjective her service was bad.

I have no doubt this skank gets untold punters booking her, she has been about for years offering BB that's all I need to know to say this. Its also good to see the discussion on this thread in my view, posters giving their opinions as they see them.

All very simple for me, I avoid WGs who openly advertise they offer BB as I don't wish to knowingly meet such skanks, and that includes to do services that don't include BB with them. I have no doubt I unknowingly punt with WGs who do do BB whether its on the sly with some punters and/or with their partners or pimps. Its all cock irrespective of where it comes from. There is nothing apart from not punting in the first place I can do about that, and not punting at all isn't an option I wish to take. So its then about taking the risks I am prepared to take for the rewards on offer as I see them. And understanding I could get infected at any time, I know nothing about the WGs I punt with as to what they may be doing and with whom, same as with civvies.

Doing BB with a WG or indeed a civvie I am not in a relationship with is a never, and even in a relationship I am cheating and lying to my partner, she could be doing the same so that's not 100% safe either.

Kirie at least openly advertises BB so punters who read her profile are aware of this, its those who don't advertise it and may even state they don't offer it but in fact do to at least some punters that I am more concerned with as I cant actively avoid them so easily. I had a scare last year when I punted with a WG who didn't advertise BB or offer it to me, I did a positive review but a short while later another punter I found credible did a review where he said she had offered him BB and he had walked. I added this info to my review. And visited the GUM sooner than I would have which is quarterly as a consequence just in case with negative results for infection.

Thanks to the OP for this review as its provoked some interesting discussion, as I said in my first post on the thread I wouldn't with his but its handy to hear what her service was like in my book, and if it puts one punter off her that's a positive to come out of it.

[lovemachine]

I am quite sure if I was to see barebakers even with the intention of using a condom that eventually there would be a time when the temptation to go bare would overide common sense. Afterall we are programed to take risks in order to have sex. Good luck Punther in being able to stay covered as there will be others more tempting than Kirie .

[Rocket Scientist]

....there would be a time when the temptation to go bare would overide common sense. Afterall we are programed to take risks in order to have sex.

Is there something you want to share about your punting habits?   

[lovemachine]

That is an underhand remark.

[Rocket Scientist]

That is an underhand remark.

It's just the way it read.    

[lovemachine]

Not at all. Are you incapable of reading the word "if".

[Sgt. Dudley Smith]

I am quite sure if I was to see barebakers even with the intention of using a condom that eventually there would be a time when the temptation to go bare would overide common sense. Afterall we are programed to take risks in order to have sex. Good luck Punther in being able to stay covered as there will be others more tempting than Kirie .

It's because of evolution.
It's a basic urge to get the WG (like any female you find attractive) impregnated.
Strains of humanity who don't have the urge tend not to reproduce and pass on their DNA.
It's why the majority of people are hetrosexual not homosexual. It's got nothing to do with one being morally superior to the other, heterosexuals just breed more.
That said it is a good idea to resist the programming, not just because of the STD risk, but just as much because of  the CSA risk.

[Sinz]

It's because of evolution.
It's a basic urge to get the WG (like any female you find attractive) impregnated.
Strains of humanity who don't have the urge tend not to reproduce and pass on their DNA.
It's why the majority of people are hetrosexual not homosexual. It's got nothing to do with one being morally superior to the other, heterosexuals just breed more.
That said it is a good idea to resist the programming, not just because of the STD risk, but just as much because of  the CSA risk.

Sgt. DS something tells me you have been on UKP before under a different username.

[Brazilian Martian]

Sgt. DS something tells me you have been on UKP before under a different username.

I agree

[LLPunting]

I agree

Guess he's one of the homophobe coppers then.  Guess that trait may be just as contentiously inheritable as he implies sexuality is.

[punther]

I am not questioning the facts you are saying, not really interested in your logic, all I am asking is it reasonable for someone to go and see an SP, knowing that they wouldn’t want to see that particular punter due to their perceived risk.

but this is a pointless question you are asking

why are you asking this question?

[punther]

Perhaps if you re-read our postings you will see that we are asking you to acknowledge that your practice is more risky than ours, all other things being equal, NEITHER is RISK-FREE.  It would seem that in your need to be right you are playing the Trump card and shifting the argument to satisfy an irrelevance and false assumptions about our position.  WE DO NOT CLAIM TO BE TOTALLY SAFE.  WE CLAIM TO BE SAFER THAN YOU AND ALL LIKE YOU, BY LIMITING OUR EXPOSURE TO RISK MORE THAN YOU DO.  Hypocracy is irrelevant to fact, taking one more trigger pull on an unfired chamber by a "speck" IS relevant to this situation.

but why do you want me to acknowledge that what i do is more risky than you...its as if you are trying to validate yourself(yourselves) by being 'safer'
than someone else

what do you think a non-punter would think of you?   - im going to guess the way you see me, is the way they would see you, so who are you to talk?

whatever you need to get your validation mate...i'm glad i could help make you feel just that little bit better about yourself x

[punther]

A good thing about this review is under this A/W link of hers its her first on here since last September and the service merited a negative in the OPs eyes, it may put some off her as apart from being an ugly cunt which is subjective her service was bad.

I have no doubt this skank gets untold punters booking her, she has been about for years offering BB that's all I need to know to say this. Its also good to see the discussion on this thread in my view, posters giving their opinions as they see them.

All very simple for me, I avoid WGs who openly advertise they offer BB as I don't wish to knowingly meet such skanks, and that includes to do services that don't include BB with them. I have no doubt I unknowingly punt with WGs who do do BB whether its on the sly with some punters and/or with their partners or pimps. Its all cock irrespective of where it comes from. There is nothing apart from not punting in the first place I can do about that, and not punting at all isn't an option I wish to take. So its then about taking the risks I am prepared to take for the rewards on offer as I see them. And understanding I could get infected at any time, I know nothing about the WGs I punt with as to what they may be doing and with whom, same as with civvies.

Doing BB with a WG or indeed a civvie I am not in a relationship with is a never, and even in a relationship I am cheating and lying to my partner, she could be doing the same so that's not 100% safe either.

Kirie at least openly advertises BB so punters who read her profile are aware of this, its those who don't advertise it and may even state they don't offer it but in fact do to at least some punters that I am more concerned with as I cant actively avoid them so easily. I had a scare last year when I punted with a WG who didn't advertise BB or offer it to me, I did a positive review but a short while later another punter I found credible did a review where he said she had offered him BB and he had walked. I added this info to my review. And visited the GUM sooner than I would have which is quarterly as a consequence just in case with negative results for infection.

Thanks to the OP for this review as its provoked some interesting discussion, as I said in my first post on the thread I wouldn't with his but its handy to hear what her service was like in my book, and if it puts one punter off her that's a positive to come out of it.

wow that was a sensible, well balanced and objective post

some on here should take heed

[LLPunting]

but why do you want me to acknowledge that what i do is more risky than you...its as if you are trying to validate yourself(yourselves) by being 'safer'
than someone else

what do you think a non-punter would think of you?   - im going to guess the way you see me, is the way they would see you, so who are you to talk?

whatever you need to get your validation mate...i'm glad i could help make you feel just that little bit better about yourself x

Validation from you is no validation at all, thankfully I get mine at Waitrose.

What time is it in DC?

Looks like the consequences of dabbling with known BBers have already asserted themselves.

[punther]

Validation from you is no validation at all, thankfully I get mine at Waitrose.

What time is it in DC?

Looks like the consequences of dabbling with known BBers have already asserted themselves.

 

[Rochelle]

You know how most on this site view bareback so what exactly was the reason for posting this other than to cause a bit of controversy?
However, obviously you're right that it's silly to think we're safe.
There's an RB at the moment asking for bareback and it's got 23 bloody bids!
There's another for a bareback party with 38 bids!

[Belgarion]

Personally I consider it irresponsible to see a well know barebacker especially one with the rep Kirie has who takes all sorts in all holes but it's not my money or my dick.

I don't give HP a hard time for seeing barebackers and won't give punther a hard time as well. In life we deal with the consequences of our actions.

Reviews on this site are for the benefit of the punting community and everyone can make decisions based on information shared here.

Rightly or wrongly, conclusions will be drawn and with all reviews, decisions will be made.