Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.


Author Topic: What is this guy thinking?  (Read 4177 times)

Offline broksonic

I just don't understand why she would want to risk her health 
Banning reason: White-knight leaver

Offline Daffodil

I just don't understand why she would want to risk her health

Again, I must ask, do you do oral without?

Offline broksonic

Again, I must ask, do you do oral without?

Well yes as I love going down on a woman providing she has a nice clean none smelly pussy
Banning reason: White-knight leaver

Offline Taggart

Out of interest, do you use condoms for oral sex too?

That's not being discussed and has a certain irrelevance.
And TBH, it's none of your fecking business.

Offline Daffodil

That's not being discussed and has a certain irrelevance.
And TBH, it's none of your fecking business.

The question wasn't aimed at you and does have a relevance to the thread. Thanks for your input though  :rolleyes:

Baumgartner could survive and be injured (see my earlier post). If these guys make a mistake it doesn't necessarily mean certain death. The risk they take is higher, and they are lauded for it.

GUM is fine, and people are definitely right to take their opinion over a poster on here. However, their evidence is unreliable if you want truly robust evidence. They do the best they can with the evidence they have. However, I have had bad advice at a GUM clinic. And I have had bad advice at my GPs. And I have had bad advice from NHS on-the-phone. Don't take it as definite.

I honestly believe all of this boils down to risk and what risk you are willing to take. I also believe that the risk, in this situation, is based on shaky evidence.

I like the original post and it's certainly extreme. My post, in response, was not meant to come across as criticising you. It was simply a post around the issues your post raised.

I did't take your post as a criticism. In fairness I can handle criticism some of it can be constructive.

For me the "evidence" isn't shaky. I can't ever see a situation where the medical profession would ever perform the sort of tests you describe in order to produce "robust evidence".
I know it's the NHS and we're supposed to have faith in them but I also know that they make mistakes so I apply my own common sense to what anyone tells me.

If the GUM told me "You can catch an STI off the toilet seat" (well I guess you can if you sit down before the other bloke stands up  :scare: :lol:) I'd say hang on what if you used a seat liner of a steam steriliser?

When they say you have a higher risk of  infection with BB anal that makes sense to me (bacteria in the bowel, lack of natural lubrication possibly causing slight bleeding or irritation etc) then BB vaginal because of increased contact with seminal vaginal secretions, then performing OWO again because of the contact with ejectile or vaginal secretions, and then receiving OWO. I see how some carry higher risks than others.

I follow the logic in that without having to know the exact % of risk, because at the end of the day 0% risk is the best in which case we'd all be doing the five knuckle shuffle wearing a fresh pair of marigold gloves each time!

I don't think anyone can argue that sloppy seconds or tenth's!! with someone who roams the country offering BB to all comers (no pun intended) over the age of 24 is pretty "up there" in the risk stakes!!!

When someone jumps out of a plane or helicopter there's ALWAYS an element of training and planning involved and they may not die if it goes tits up BUT primarily it's themselves they're putting at risk, yes they may land on some unfortunate souls head and take them out too. Jump out of aircraft wear a parachute!

When it comes to BB sex I love it, you can't beat it. BUT only with a partner who you trust and who trusts you.
For me it's about enjoying the punt while minimising the risk. If I was a fan of BB outside a committed relationship (and I'm NOT) I'd sooner stick pins in my eyes than indulge myself as irresponsibly as the FR poster.

Anyway.... to the barebackers I say good luck it's your choice...and if you come across someone doing it and not advertising the fact give the punting population the heads up. That way if BB is your thing you'll be able to book the lady and if it isn't you'll know to give them a miss!   :hi:

Offline Daffodil

The question wasn't aimed at you and does have a relevance to the thread. Thanks for your input though  :rolleyes:

Apologies, I thought you were answering on the behalf of broksonic.

Here is what you said, with the relevant part highlighted:

Personally I fail to see the attraction of BB.  What we do is risky enough in many ways without upping the stakes to death wish syndrome. Why risk your own health and that of ones close to you?  Surely ultra thin condoms are the way?

When oral without has been shown, on numerous occasions, to carry a risk of infection how can you make this statement? Ask a very respected member here (kingnuts) if you can contract disease from owo. If you don't do oral without, why not say? If you do, then you're a hypocrite  :hi:

Offline Daffodil

For me the "evidence" isn't shaky. I can't ever see a situation where the medical profession would ever perform the sort of tests you describe in order to produce "robust evidence".
I know it's the NHS and we're supposed to have faith in them but I also know that they make mistakes so I apply my own common sense to what anyone tells me.

The evidence is shaky. And you're narrowing your view, the world is bigger than the NHS. The fact is that robust research into this field cannot be carried out because a) people lie, and b) it would be immoral to carry out a randomised controlled trial (the gold standard of research) in the field.

As such, the evidence is flawed. It is the best evidence we have, but it is not robust...therefore it's 'shaky'  :hi:

Offline Taggart

The question wasn't aimed at you and does have a relevance to the thread. Thanks for your input though  :rolleyes:

In that case, I apologise, publicly.

Offline broksonic

I would have oral without because the risk is extremely low .  I've probably got more chance of getting knocked of my mountain bike
Banning reason: White-knight leaver

Offline Dani

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,593
Everything we do in this industry carries a risk even deep French kissing can carry a risk if the woman or man has Chlamydia in their throat.  OWO carries a bit higher risk than some people think.  I offer this so I know how much of a risk it can be as I know many a prossie who has caught either Chlamydia or Gonorrhea from OWO.
It is less risky than BB but some people either don't like condoms or like the thrill of not knowing if they may catch something or not.  Personally I would never offer BB in this job and even use a condom with my partner just in case even though I prefer natural sex in my private life (come on sex is so much better without a condom) I cant accept the risks to my partner (yes it does piss him off sometimes).
However much we dislike the idea of BB in this industry we cannot really condemn those who choose to do it as we all take risks and their risk assessment is just much lower than ours. 
Yes they may catch something and pass it on but the person they are passing it to also knows the risk of BB sex.  If they deem the risk ok then surely that is their choice.

How many men or women go out at a weekend and pull a one night stand and don't wear a condom?  They do this week after week after week so are just as much risk or probably more as they are less likely to get regular gum checks.  Again it is personal choice. 
Condemning someone for their sexual choices seems a little off considering the industry we are all involved in and the fact that ost of society would condemn each and every one of us for what we do and would deem our risks far too high

Offline CoolTiger

Sorry....forgot to add the Aw link in previous post

www.adultwork.com/2147463

Someone referred to her a week or two back, mh.

She requires that lads aged between 21 & 24 have to wear a condom.  The rest of us can, if we insist! :scare:

In addition, under one of the Tabs:
Its that time of the month guys just now and so I'm feeling in need of impregnation. I need loads of HOT SPUNK UP ME while I'm ovulating. I'll suck your cock back to life after you've shot a load up me coz I want you to shoot up me a second time before you leave.

Be prepared to be contacted by the CSA as well.


Offline Madone1

She must believe that you can only catch STDs of under 24's  :dash:

Offline potato

If a punter wants to do BB full sex with a girl that encourages it then that's their business and their risk.  What I wish though, is that those punters would stick to those sort of girls and not see others that are more conscientious about their health.  I always check back on the feedbacks to see who the girl has seen and check to see where those guys have been previously. Not perfect I know but if the guy is BB'ing here and there then that "safe" girl is off my list.

Unfortunately, many girls might say they like to be safe but don't seem to care about whether the guys they are seeing have been safe in the past. If you look at the number of feedbacks where the punter is not registered any more, it would seem to be that some guys may run 2 profiles - a "safe" one and an alternative one for the riskier practices that they wouldn't want decent girls to see and possibly be refused as a result. Of course if the girl has a phone number on her profile then god knows how much goes under the radar - probably the majority of it.

Punting carries a risk for both parties. I accept that there is a certain level of risk from OWO / RO and that's as far as I want to go.

 


Latest media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)