Are Any of Us Responsible??..........

[punther]

Ask yourself if there is a difference in attitude towards sexual health from someone like Kirie and Miss Saafe. If you believe there is no difference then you have your answer, with that belief then condoms for any activity with any pro$$ie becomes optional. To follow your logic through, it is equally likely that someone who rarely uses condoms for any sexual activity represents the same risk as someone who only offers OWO then why would any pro$$ie insist on condoms for sex (ignoring the pregnancy risk)?

they represent the same risk depending on the sexual activity you engage in with them

The majority opinion, on this forum, is that Miss BB has a careless attitude towards her own personal sexual health, whereas others are more cautious and represent a less risky option. Abstinence is the only certainty of avoiding an STD, condoms reduce the risk, being selective about where you put your cock is more hope than expectation. Considering one pro$$ie's attitude towards their own and their punter's sexual health is a reasonable precaution,

tbh it shows how difficult it is to get a direct answer to the question without making a comparison


if it is possible to make the statements that kirrie does not care about her sexual health based on her barebacking without drawing any comparissons  to the behaviour of other 'safer' WG's then it should be possible to do the reverse, shouldn't it?

but it's still not been possible for anyone to say whether the decision of the 'safe' prossie to give owo to large numbers of men/strangers does or does not show care for her sexual health based on this choice she has made

and tbf it is a pretty straightforward question

[punther]

Been thinking about this some more and I think it helps to seperate the ideas of personal risk and irresponsibility and let the former refer to the risk we take as individuals and the latter to the extra risk we create for everyone else in the community with our actions. While it is semantically possible to be personally irresponsible, I dont think anyone really care what anyone else does at that level.

To make things easier lets divide the punting world into 4 groups, G0, G1, G2 and G3 based on the number of holes they think its ok to stick a bare dick into: so G0 is all protected, G1 is OWO only, G2 bb pussy and G3 bb anal. Note that the personal risk and irresponsibility to others gets higher alongside the numbers.

Probably in a world without consequences (sti, pregnancy) we’d all be in G3. I mean who actually likes condoms (actually I just realised I’d be in G2 as I really have no desire to get someone else’s shit on any part of my body but thats a whole different thing).

Trouble is we dont live in that world so we all realign ourselves into one of the groups based on the risk we are willing to take. That gives you a good reason to get angry with someone in a higher group because you have set your risk level and these bastards are increasing it! But unless you are in G0 there is another group of people who think exactly the same about you. If you are an owo lover in G1 then the bb guys really piss you off but you are being just as irresponsible to all the guys who do everything protected.

What about a world where you personally were guaranteed to have no consequences but everyone else would (and you could still transmit infections)? I think everyone would stick in G3. Maybe they would logically want to be in a lower group but there would be no investment and we all know how little brain takes over when it comes down to it.

Final world - you are at risk but there is no risk to the community (you always act responnsibly). Would that change the group you’d put yourself in? I dont think so. We alljudge both our risk and responsibility level simply on the level of personal risk we want to take.

I think that is the core of this and similar arguments and why BBers get such vitriol directed their way. Everyone wants to be where they have decided is best and fundamentally believe that everyone else should follow suit with that choice.

Trouble is that is never going to happen. There will always be people in all groups. We could make a community law that says you have to be in G1 but everyone would just ignore it. Thats pretty much what we all do everytime we punt (not a statutary law obviously). The hard fact is there will always be those who want to live in riskier categories than we do and in so doing increase our risk. Just as we - all of us here - increase the risk for the non-punting world by our behaviour. ie as far as they are concerned we all act irresponsibly.

So we can shout and scream at people or cover our eyes and ears and pretend it isnt so - or we can act like grown ups and accept it. And if we do that and welcome all punters - whatever group or sub group they find themselves in. If we do that we are all in a better place because we all have maximum information. After all a secret barebacker is no longer secret if someone writes a review about it. That to me is everything that is great about this site - maximum information 

best post made on this topic hands down 

[stampjones]

it would be interesting to know what the outcome of this would be if some sort of study was done

Yeah definitely though Im not sure how you’d even do it without causing a lot of pain!! Speaking from personal experience Ive had hundreds of punts with confom sex and/or owo over 30 years and my current record is 1 case of nsu from an owo punt. I guess the only conclusion is that both are pretty low risk

[stampjones]

best post made on this topic hands down 

Cheers but I think this has been quite a good thread with good points and reasoned arguments from most people

[Flunt]

To validate your argument that OWO is as risky and irresponsible as BB you would have to look at transmission rates of STDs?

Say 5% of punters have an STD. For every 100 cocks a non BB escort sucks then 5 of them have an STD, if the transmission rate for oral sex for the deliverer is low then there is a good chance she will avoid infection. Generally the transmission rate is lower for the receiver therefore the punter has a good chance of avoiding catching anything, in the remote scenario where non BB escort has caught something.

Allowing for the same comparison and numbers for BB then I imagine the transmission rates are considerably higher when penetrative sex is involved? Using three holes and PTM/ATM then the likelihood of infection is a lot higher? The other thing to skew the figures would be an individual attitude towards self preservation and their likelihood of being infected to begin with, suggesting that those who seek out BB are more likely to have an STD to begin with?

I have no way of knowing the % of punters with an STD and can't be arsed to look for the transmission rates. I have avoided commenting on your Kirie review because I don't judge a punter's preferences, however I disagree with your opinion that having OWO from someone like Kirie is an equal risk to OWO from a non BB pro$$ie. If you can establish statistical proof that they are equal risks then I will agree with your point of view but considering the anecdotal evidence and the lack of STDs among members who enjoy OWO, I remain sceptical.

[punther]

however I disagree with your opinion that having OWO from someone like Kirie is an equal risk to OWO from a non BB pro$$ie. If you can establish statistical proof that they are equal risks then I will agree with your point of view but considering the anecdotal evidence and the lack of STDs among members who enjoy OWO, I remain sceptical.

regarding the one quoted,
the argument has never been about how risky is owo or how easily it spreads....i wold agree transmission rates are low. Ive had hundreds of punts and only caught something once

the question is  do 2 people engaging in the same activity pose equal risk in relation to that activity and though we do not have statistics can we come to a reasoned judgement using logic

i feel it is possible to show they are the same risk and which is why I was asking for it to be disproved, because if it is possible to explain why they are of different risk when engaging in the same activity then then we would have our answer


this thread has been interesting as there have been several different points and arguments running concurrently and though it may not change any previously held opinions people had it would hopefully have made us question our thinking about certain things

[punther]

Cheers but I think this has been quite a good thread with good points and reasoned arguments from most people

+100

[Flunt]

same activity pose equal risk in relation to that activity

My argument is that BB pro$$ies engage in riskier activities (PTM/ATM) which makes them more likely to have something in their throat and this is where the risk comes from. Therefore, it is not the same activity.

Whilst you may have covered sex before and after putting your cock in her mouth others won't, they go to see a BB pro$$ie because they want BB sex and they go to see someone like Kirie for the full on PSE experience where she sucks their cock after sex? A subtle but important difference?

[LLPunting]

My argument is that BB pro$$ies engage in riskier activities (PTM/ATM) which makes them more likely to have something in their throat and this is where the risk comes from. Therefore, it is not the same activity.

Whilst you may have covered sex before and after putting your cock in her mouth others won't, they go to see a BB pro$$ie because they want BB sex and they go to see someone like Kirie for the full on PSE experience where she sucks their cock after sex? A subtle but important difference?

Flunt, a great set of reasoned posts.  Thank you.

[daviemac]

the question is  do 2 people engaging in the same activity pose equal risk in relation to that activity and though we do not have statistics can we come to a reasoned judgement using logic

i feel it is possible to show they are the same risk and which is why I was asking for it to be disproved, because if it is possible to explain why they are of different risk when engaging in the same activity then then we would have our answer

I can't decide whether you really are this naive or you're just trolling. How can you possibly think two people doing the same activity pose the same risk, it depends on other criteria.

Take fellatio as an example.
Safe sex girl - safe sex boy = minimal risk
BB girl - safe sex boy = 50% increase in risk of boy catching something
Safe sex girl - BB boy = 50% increase in risk of girl catching something
BB girl - BB boy = 100% increase in risk of one or both catching something

So you're trying to tell me all the above are equally risky.   

[LLPunting]

SJ, thanks for the G groups explanation.

[punther]

My argument is that BB pro$$ies engage in riskier activities (PTM/ATM) which makes them more likely to have something in their throat and this is where the risk comes from. Therefore, it is not the same activity.

non-barebackers engage in rimming

what about any infection in a punters asshole that they pick up and transfer to your cock when they give you owo? 

what if the punter they rim happens to be bisexual and has had unprotected anal intercourse prior to being rimmed by the non-bareback WG who then gives you OWO?

we can go tit for tat with this lol

[punther]

I can't decide whether you really are this naive or you're just trolling. How can you possibly think two people doing the same activity pose the same risk, it depends on other criteria.

Take fellatio as an example.
Safe sex girl - safe sex boy = minimal risk
BB girl - safe sex boy = 50% increase in risk of boy catching something
Safe sex girl - BB boy = 50% increase in risk of girl catching something
BB girl - BB boy = 100% increase in risk of one or both catching something

So you're trying to tell me all the above are equally risky.   

when is the last time you received a blowjob from a vagina?

you seem to be struggling to distinguish the vagina from the mouth

[stampjones]

SJ, thanks for the G groups explanation.

Haha - cheers. Im hoping thats what will make me famous one day - the man who invented G groups! Probably need a snappier line though. Isnt really up tbere with “God is dead”!

[Flunt]

non-barebackers engage in rimming Same as BB

what about any infection in a punters asshole that they pick up and transfer to your cock when they give you owo?  Same as BB

what if the punter they rim happens to be bisexual and has had unprotected anal intercourse prior to being rimmed by the non-bareback WG who then gives you OWO? Same as BB

we can go tit for tat with this lol (ATM/PTM) is unique to BB

[LLPunting]

I can't decide whether you really are this naive or you're just trolling. How can you possibly think two people doing the same activity pose the same risk, it depends on other criteria.

Take fellatio as an example.
Safe sex girl - safe sex boy = minimal risk
BB girl - safe sex boy = 50% increase in risk of boy catching something
Safe sex girl - BB boy = 50% increase in risk of girl catching something
BB girl - BB boy = 100% increase in risk of one or both catching something

So you're trying to tell me all the above are equally risky.   

Do you mean these pairings are engaging in OWO/RO and safe or unsafe vaginal sex?
Your %ages are arbitrary they do not account for the multiple ways someone can be infected depending on unsafe practices, which unsafe acts are being performed by whom, the infectiousness of the various STIs that could be in play, how many partners each has since last all clear test, behaviour of those partners.

That said, even when these extra probabilities are considered your basic assertion about risk still holds unless unprotected oral is way more risky than unprotected vaginal or anal sex.

[LLPunting]

Haha - cheers. Im hoping thats what will make me famous one day - the man who invented G groups! Probably need a snappier line though. Isnt really up tbere with “God is dead”!

"Fuck everybody bareback, let God sort them out!"

[stampjones]

"Fuck everybody bareback, let God sort them out!"

Or maybe “God is dead cos he fucked mary magdelene bareback”?

[LLPunting]

Pointless picking specific combinations of activity out of a hat, ultimately all combinations across multiple deleterious infectious conditions, multiple transmission pathways, multiple generations of risky behaviour, etc.  Ultimately it's all probabilistic and those adding in BB vaginal or anal risks are increasing the chances of infection and transmission downstream of this activity.
Just because this becomes complicated to quantify doesn't mean you can dismiss it and simply assume certainty of infection for all players regardless of how they play.  That is the fundamentalist claptrap Punther was originally relying on to make his point.  Certainty in any one element of the massive set of probabilities  only comes about when you confirm the sexual health of a participant by testing them for all ailments they've been exposed to (directly or indirectly).  That forces a recompute of the infection model which changes the probabilities but does not guarantee certainty of infection for all downstream connections unless the condition has 100% infection (no possibility of immunity) and transmission rates across all unprotected acts.  Nothing STI related has that yet.

[LLPunting]

Or maybe “God is dead cos he fucked mary magdelene bareback”?

God practices safe sex by proxy doesn't he?  I thought Jesus' Mum was filled with the "Holy Spirit" (he's a crafty fucker telling all the simpletons his "essence" is "Holy Spirit")
Jesus was born of the immaculate conception.  If God were to engage in BB physical sex with someone he was not married to or in a monogamous relationship with he would be sanctifying promiscuous BB sex as he surely only does Godly things, which means that all could engage in this blessed activity without fear of condemnation.

[daviemac]

when is the last time you received a blowjob from a vagina?

you seem to be struggling to distinguish the vagina from the mouth

You seem to struggle remembering what you post. I answered the question I quoted, which doesn't mention vaginal sex just "the same activity". The quote does mention OWO and that is why I used it as an example, unless a blow job not a sexual activity now.   

regarding the one quoted,
the argument has never been about how risky is owo or how easily it spreads....i wold agree transmission rates are low. Ive had hundreds of punts and only caught something once

The question is  do 2 people engaging in the same activity pose equal risk in relation to that activity and though we do not have statistics can we come to a reasoned judgement using logic

i feel it is possible to show they are the same risk and which is why I was asking for it to be disproved, because if it is possible to explain why they are of different risk when engaging in the same activity then then we would have our answer


this thread has been interesting as there have been several different points and arguments running concurrently and though it may not change any previously held opinions people had it would hopefully have made us question our thinking about certain things

To clarify my post, the percentages are not meant to be a scientifically proven fact just an indication of how the risk would increase with different scenarios.

Where BB is mentioned that would include any sexual activity carried out without the use of a condom, including vaginal and or anal sex.  Again this is to demonstrate how the risk would, or could, increase in each case.  This is not backed up with any sort of evidence just my opinion based on my use of logic and that logic tells me sexual activity with someone who barebacks all comers is riskier than with someone who doesn't.

I have used oral sex as just one example of sexual activity others would carry risks as well.

[punther]

Ass to Mouth  and Pussy to mouth are just different ways of transferring the infection( from the vagina or anus  VIA the penis to the mouth)....it could easily be Finger to Mouth

With  rimming it is Ass to Mouth transmission in THE most literal sense

if rimming is the same as bareback,based on the additions you made, then by your reasoning non-barebackers that offer rimming are just as bad as barebackers, so why don't they get the same backlash?
Do you avoid non-barebackers that offer rimming on their likes list in the same way you avoid barebackers?

[Flunt]

Pointless picking specific combinations of activity out of a hat, ultimately all combinations across multiple deleterious infectious conditions, multiple transmission pathways, multiple generations of risky behaviour, etc.  Ultimately it's all probabilistic and those adding in BB vaginal or anal risks are increasing the chances of infection and transmission downstream of this activity.
Just because this becomes complicated to quantify doesn't mean you can dismiss it and simply assume certainty of infection for all players regardless of how they play.  That is the fundamentalist claptrap Punther was originally relying on to make his point.  Certainty in any one element of the massive set of probabilities  only comes about when you confirm the sexual health of a participant by testing them for all ailments they've been exposed to (directly or indirectly).  That forces a recompute of the infection model which changes the probabilities but does not guarantee certainty of infection for all downstream connections unless the condition has 100% infection (no possibility of immunity) and transmission rates across all unprotected acts.  Nothing STI related has that yet.

I'm sure Seven of Nine could answer that 

[punther]

You seem to struggle remembering what you post. I answered the question I quoted, which doesn't mention vaginal sex just "the same activity". The quote does mention OWO and that is why I used it as an example, unless a blow job not a sexual activity now.   

To clarify my post, the percentages are not meant to be a scientifically proven fact just an indication of how the risk would increase with different scenarios.

Where BB is mentioned that would include any sexual activity carried out without the use of a condom, including vaginal and or anal sex.  Again this is to demonstrate how the risk would, or could, increase in each case.  This is not backed up with any sort of evidence just my opinion based on my use of logic and that logic tells me sexual activity with someone who barebacks all comers is riskier than with someone who doesn't.

I have used oral sex as just one example of sexual activity others would carry risks as well.

the post was confusing as it was not clear what point you were trying to make

maybe the misunderstanding was where I said "2 people"...  it should probably have read "2 WG's"

[daviemac]

the post was confusing as it was not clear what point you were trying to make

maybe the misunderstanding was where I said "2 people"...  it should probably have read "2 WG's"

Ah right now that makes sense, I would agree if 2 WG's practise unsafe sex then the risks to punters are equal. It would be more by good luck than judgement to not catch anything. 

[Flunt]

Ass to Mouth  and Pussy to mouth are just different ways of transferring the infection( from the vagina or anus  VIA the penis to the mouth)....it could easily be Finger to Mouth

With  rimming it is Ass to Mouth transmission in THE most literal sense

if rimming is the same as bareback,based on the additions you made, then by your reasoning non-barebackers that offer rimming are just as bad as barebackers, so why don't they get the same backlash?
Do you avoid non-barebackers that offer rimming on their likes list in the same way you avoid barebackers?

You are mixing your initial argument and deflecting away from the whole point of the thread. The unique difference between BB and non BB pro$$ies is the unprotected sex the former offers, everything else is a service provided by every pro$$ie at their discretion. Does a BB pro$$ie have a greater concern for her sexual health or less? Are you more likely to find a BB pro$$ie with an STD or a non BB pro$$ie?

Consider the answers to these two questions and you might reach the conclusion that OWO from a BB pro$$ie is a marginally greater risk than one from a non BB pro$$ie. We pay for sex, is that responsible or irresponsible? That depends on who is asking the question. Taking reasonable precautions would suggest an element of responsibility, maybe covered oral should be included as a reasonable precaution and no more RO or rimming either way, but where's the fun in that?

[punther]

You are mixing your initial argument and deflecting away from the whole point of the thread. The unique difference between BB and non BB pro$$ies is the unprotected sex the former offers, everything else is a service provided by every pro$$ie at their discretion.

It wasn't deflection you made some additional assumption about what the BB prossie may/or may not do so I added some assumptions also about what a non-BB prossie may or may not do. It has to be a level playing field, we can't just add assumptions that would skew the argument in ones favour.

Does a BB pro$$ie have a greater concern for her sexual health or less? 

It would depend on the activity you engage in with the BB, and in this discussion the activity is OWO...with that the answer is No(imo....which would change to yes....if if can be disproved logically/with reason)

Are you more likely to find a BB pro$$ie with an STD or a non BB pro$$ie?

YES - and this has never been disputed

Consider the answers to these two questions and you might reach the conclusion that OWO from a BB pro$$ie is a marginally greater risk than one from a non BB pro$$ie. We pay for sex, is that responsible or irresponsible? That depends on who is asking the question. Taking reasonable precautions would suggest an element of responsibility, maybe covered oral should be included as a reasonable precaution and no more RO or rimming either way, but where's the fun in that?

a bit confused by what you mean here

its not really about what's fun or not fun

its about acknowledging that what we all enjoy what we do whether it be owo, rimming, ro    [with prostitutes]  but at the same being objective enough to be able to acknowledge  that doing these things [with prostitutes], in their own right, do not 'show we care for our sexual health', ' show we are making responsible choices' etc. etc.

and this has been backed up by an inability for anybody so far to actually say the contrary(myself included)......Being objective I would not be able to make the statement that receiving owo from prostitutes(non-barebacking or barebacking) shows I care for my sexual health 

- imo it would be a ridiculous statement to make and believe (meaning I would be delusional, as if looking after ones sexual health meant not contracting infections..... then the act of going to visit an individual who is from the highest risk group when it comes to human sexual behavior to receive unprotected oral sex  would mean I was not showing care for my sexual health)

- if i was to pass a judgement on someone that their choice to visit a barebacker for unprotected oral sex was 'irresponsible', 'showed lack of care for sexual health'  etc.  etc.     and at the  same time I went to visit a non-barebacker for unprotected oral sex  that would make me a hypocrite  as I am already aware that I am unable to make a statement that visiting the non-barebacking escort for unprotected oral sex shows 'I care for my sexual health'

 

[CluckinBell]

It seems the problem is this:

1 The level and meaning of responsibility.
2 The level and meaning of risk.
3 The understanding of human behaviour.

Overall from what i've read people have different views on all of them unless we can agree on all the discussion is mute 

[stampjones]

A lot of the arguments here have been about which of some two scenarios are riskier, but I think that firstly it is much harder to say definitively in a lot more cases than might be thought; and secondly that, it is pretty much the wrong argument to be having in the first place. Let me try and explain.

You can imagine a line starting from a point on the left representing not having any sexual contact with anyone and going all the way to doing anal bb with an hiv+ hooker with blood dripping from her crack having just scratched your dick on a smack heads used needle on the right. We are all hopefully somewhere between those points, probably farther to the right (risky) than the left.

Some places on the line are clearly less risky than others - all protected monogamous relationship vs bb with hookers. Other pairs of places it is harder to tell which is riskier but as soon as you cross over into the sex with hookers category you are definitely at the risky end of the world.

Who is taking most risks in there? It seems obvious that bb is riskier than owo but even there it is not 100% clear. You can say that bb is 100 (or whatever) times riskier than owo but if that is the case, who is the (most) irresponsible one here: the punter who does bb with a prossie once a year or the one who does owo every day for a year?

Its very hard to tell and whatever position you take on the line there are always people on the safer side saying you are being irresponsible and putting everyone else at greater risk. So its hard to make the argument yourself when you have just chosen what is effectively a random spot on the line, not really much different from any other spot, but which just happens to coincide exactly with the level of risk you happen to be comfortable with. It is purely personal preference and so its hard to make a rational argument that isnt also made be people taking positions just left or right of yours. And why should anyone change their position when your only argument is that you think your particular position is as far right as its safe to go?

If we want something that we can agree on it has to be something based on more than such arbitary positions. One philosopher - no idea who - proposed the idea that you should consider what would happen if you were to enter the line at a random position, then you should choose the rules that would maximise your ability to live your life well wherever you happened to land. As Ive said before I think that is where everyone just quits all the moralising and outrage at other people’s choices and just gets on with making sure they can be as safe/satisfied as possible in a world that inevitably contains people who choose a riskier way of living it than they do. Then we might actually make things safer for everyone.

[Flunt]

A lot of the arguments here have been about which of some two scenarios are riskier, but I think that firstly it is much harder to say definitively in a lot more cases than might be thought; and secondly that, it is pretty much the wrong argument to be having in the first place. Let me try and explain.

A very interesting post and one which sums up a lot of my thoughts on the subject. My opinions are purely that, opinions, they are not a judgement on where someone is on your imaginary line. My attempt was to answer the OP and whether his visit to Kirie was any more irresponsible than another punter's visit to a pro$$ie who has more concern for her sexual health.

All things being equal I think Kirie represents a greater risk than another pro$$ie who doesn't offer BB to everyone. It is conceivable that the reverse could be true and punters who believe they are safe receiving OWO and never get tested are a greater threat to us all.

[stampjones]

A very interesting post and one which sums up a lot of my thoughts on the subject. My opinions are purely that, opinions, they are not a judgement on where someone is on your imaginary line. My attempt was to answer the OP and whether his visit to Kirie was any more irresponsible than another punter's visit to a pro$$ie who has more concern for her sexual health.

All things being equal I think Kirie represents a greater risk than another pro$$ie who doesn't offer BB to everyone. It is conceivable that the reverse could be true and punters who believe they are safe receiving OWO and never get tested are a greater threat to us all.

Dont get me wrong - I think a visit to kirie is more dangerous than having owo with a non BBer - thats why I do the latter and not the former - but the reality is none of us really know. I mean all of us 100% accept that kirie is a disease ridden skank but we dont even really know that - how many infections or whatever has she actually picked up?

Truth is we all base our jusgements on some kind of emotional response much more than a rational response. It is known through psychological studies that we are very bad as a species at judging relative risks. We are all really effectively saying this seems to me to be about as far along the line as its safe to go.

Maybe punther really is just trying to justify his visit to kirie, but really isnt that just what everyone else is trying to do to in response to his arguments about owo. And even if our guts are right and she is more dangerous, why isnt our position just as bad when viewed buy the guy who goes all protected? Point is, I think, is that none of us should have to justify our positions. They are equally valid choices to make.