Think this thread has been awesome and glad it went on for so long as it allowed views of others that usually wouldn't have been voiced because thoughts that went against the common consensus would have shut down the discussion quickly before others could come in and say their piece
A lot of what has been said has been based on assumptions by the anti-bb camp(though a few have actually made sense and you could see the rationale in their thinking) but at the end of the day its the facts that matter
i don't know how many of you have caught sti's in the time you've been punting...i personally have
as bad as you may all say kiirie is I can categorically say she has never given me an STI
As far as the non-bb WG.....well she gave me the heads up that I probably should go to a clinic so when the green gunk started spewing out of my cock.....think it would be safe to say it was her who gave it to me
as far as facts that I can verify......... (and it would be great if others could throw their own personal data into the mix....especially as some strong arguments have been put across on this thread)
........receiving OWO from non-BB wg's has proven to be
greater than or equal risk to receiving OWO from wg's that offer BB
this is back up through
1. Actual events/personal data
2. Reasoning & Logic
3. Knowledge on how STI's spread
assumptions are one thing....reality is another
but we are all entitled to our opinions and naturally based on experiences views and opinions will change over time by varying degrees in different directions
your argument is a good one and would be right but you need 2 big assumptions to hold
Assumption 1: punters who see kirrie have less of an interest in Rochelle...which is a massive assumption
if they had a similar preference for Rochelle due to her tickling their fancy in a different way the same number of Punter A's would go to see Rochelle so risk would be the same, just because there are more punter b's seeing Rochelle increasing her overall number of booking doesn't dilute her chances of getting an infection an passing it on
i.e. Kiirie sees Punter A1(infected) + Punter A2(infected) (2 total bookings - 100% of the punters infected)
Rochelle sees 8 x Punter B(all 8 not infected) + Punter A1 + Punter A2 (10 total bookings - 25% of punters infected)
though rochelle has seen more of punter B's which reduces the % of infected punters she sees, not because she is seeing less infected punters than kiirie, but because she is seeing more uninfected punters
she's still exposed to the same infected punters as kirrie(Punter A1 + Punter A2) so exposed to the same risk as kiirrie....and actually ironically Rochelle would pose the greater risk to Punter B's now because she likely to infect more uninfected people than kiirie will because more uninfected people come to see her(because they believe she is safer)
Assumption 2: every time they get treatment the first punter that books rochelle happens to not be a Punter A
-----
as far as the question on responsibility, hypocrisy and delusion....think someone tried to brush it off as a 'red herring' in a post
...those questions still hold....... as none of the people who were forthright enough to say anybody that visited a WG like kiirie was irresponsible/crazy/an idiot etc...... has been able to state how their own choices, in their own right, as a WG(giving OWO) or a punter(receiving OWO) is sensible