What is this guy thinking?

[munterhunter]

Here's an AW FR on a woman who tours the country doing BB

She has 80+ positive feedbacks and a number of FR's again all positive!!

This guy spent £30 for a 15 min BB session at the end of the day "sloppy seconds" or "stirring the porridge" I believe it's referred to.

PERSONALITY
"Allison was very outgoing, smiling and French kissing me as she guided my hand down to her sperm-laden pussy, which to my surprise was naked underneath her skimpy skirt."


SERVICES
"Full bareback sloppy seconds gfe with deep French kissing."

ABOUT THE MEETING
"Allison smiled and giggled wickedly as she French kissed me with lovely pert lips whilst guiding my hand to reveal her very spunky pussy which as i understand it had been cummed in by at least ten other equally lucky men that day.
I was so grateful she had made some time for me at the end of the day, and i knew by the wicked glint in her eyes that she was about to undo my trousers and sink her really well used but clean and immaculately tight pussy irrefusably onto my cock.
This she did with skill, and by god all that slippery semen from the dozen other barebackers before me really made me sink in easily.

I stirred around for a bit but couldn't hold back and soon filled her deeply with some more fresh clean sperm. By god this girl is wicked, filthy and so fuckable. Best bareback fuck ever. Sorry for late feedback!

Excellent value at only thirty quid, everyone has access to her at those prices. Amazing xx"

I know the BB think has been debated to death BUT FUCK ME.

He visited a woman that travels around doing BB for as little as 30 quid a time and thinks the idea of shagging her while she's full to overflowing with previous punter's "deposits" is amazing!

What WAS he thinking? Certainly not clearly with his brains...probably with his dick!
But to be honest reading the FR just makes my dick shrivel!!!

I think it's best summed up in his own words.

"Excellent value at only thirty quid, everyone has access to her at those prices. Amazing xx"

YES Everyone with 30 quid in their pocket despite any infections they may have   

 

[munterhunter]

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

External Link/Members Only

[Rochdull lad]

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!

[Daffodil]

I try not to be quick to judge practices like this. It's legal and is just a different outlook on risk than yours.

I've not read enough of your experience, munterhunter, to know if you do owo or not, but many here do and will also castigate barebackers. A girl who does owo may have had a dozen guy's cum in there before your turn. Is it really that much more different?

Now I do believe bareback vaginal sex is higher risk, but that's just a perception based on, somewhat, unreliable data and, probably predominantly, social attitudes.

[darkvamp]

And there goes my lunch 

A perfect exampke of how to get knob rot is one easy step

[CBPaul]

Reads more like a failed attempt at erotic literature to me. She kept 10 loads inside her until the end of the day for him and still has a clean pussy 

No doubt sloppy seconds are available and each to their own, count me out though.

[davetheman]

Looking to see her soon myself

[vorian]

It's his thing, for me, no. For you it's your choice.

  It is his choice if he likes that sort of thing and he is willing to take the extra risk. Well who am I to judge.

[munterhunter]

I try not to be quick to judge practices like this. It's legal and is just a different outlook on risk than yours.

I've not read enough of your experience, munterhunter, to know if you do owo or not, but many here do and will also castigate barebackers. A girl who does owo may have had a dozen guy's cum in there before your turn. Is it really that much more different?

Now I do believe bareback vaginal sex is higher risk, but that's just a perception based on, somewhat, unreliable data and, probably predominantly, social attitudes.

I agree it is a different outlook on risk to mine, but it's NOT "a perception based on somewhat unreliable data" unless of course you think the staff in the GUM clinics don't know what they're talking about?

As to the OWO question:

There are risks involved if you choose to give or receive owo but they are less than with BB vaginal sex, ejaculate in the vagina will remain in situ unless the lady uses a douche. Ejaculate in the mouth will be spit out or swallowed. The quote below is from External Link/Members Only

"It's believed that the risk of infection is lower when you receive oral sex than when you give someone oral sex. This is because when someone gives you oral sex, you don't come into contact with your partner's genital fluid (semen or vaginal fluid). However, there's still a risk of infection."

Do I have the right to "castigate" barebackers? Well no that's their choice!
If I see a FR like this where someone describes sloppy seconds BB sex with someone like the lady in question, is it unreasonable to ask the question "What was he thinking?" I think it is!

[Daffodil]

I agree it is a different outlook on risk to mine, but it's NOT "a perception based on somewhat unreliable data" unless of course you think the staff in the GUM clinics don't know what they're talking about?

As to the OWO question:

There are risks involved if you choose to give or receive owo but they are less than with BB vaginal sex, ejaculate in the vagina will remain in situ unless the lady uses a douche. Ejaculate in the mouth will be spit out or swallowed. The quote below is from External Link/Members Only

"It's believed that the risk of infection is lower when you receive oral sex than when you give someone oral sex. This is because when someone gives you oral sex, you don't come into contact with your partner's genital fluid (semen or vaginal fluid). However, there's still a risk of infection."

Do I have the right to "castigate" barebackers? Well no that's their choice!
If I see a FR like this where someone describes sloppy seconds BB sex with someone like the lady in question, is it unreasonable to ask the question "What was he thinking?" I think it is!

Most data, when it comes from sex, is unreliable. It's based on whether the person has told the truth or not. Often they don't. There are no true randomised controlled trials to see what the rates of infection are, e.g. having a guy with HIV fuck 100 girls in the vagina and then comparing that with 100 girls he fucks in the mouth.

In terms of oral sex, it is often less clear because people who engage in oral sex also engage in other forms of sex. You often see that caveat made in studies looking at oral transmission rates.

I didn't say that you castigate barebackers, but that there are those who do despite it being just a question of risk. That's hypocritical in my opinion.

Personally, to me, I would want to stick my cock in a prossies mouth who has just taken 12 loads of cum about as much as I would a prossies vagina who has just taken 12 loads of cum.

[Toshiba]

Each to there own to be honest

They know the dangers so its up to them

[Daffodil]

Each to there own to be honest

They know the dangers so its up to them

Human's enjoy risk. Some are attracted to it. Some (Baumgartner) are lauded for it, others (barebackers) are castigated.

[SirPhilipXX]

Human's enjoy risk. Some are attracted to it. Some (Baumgartner) are lauded for it, others (barebackers) are castigated.

But if he gets it wrong it's over in a flash, better that than than risk dying a lingering, painful, wasting death from Aids.

[dilettante]

I'd say saliva is pretty potent stuff re "neutralising" whatever's in the mouth too, same as stomach acid is.

[Daffodil]

But if he gets it wrong it's over in a flash, better that than than risk dying a lingering, painful, wasting death from Aids.

True. Of course AIDS is different to HIV, but, on the basis of HIV, I believe it is now considered to be more of a chronic disease and one which you live with over a normal life-expectancy.

Also this guy could have clipped the hole he was flying through, and survive, whilst living the rest of his life in a wheelchair.

The guy 'flying' is just an example. Many people rock climb, parachute, BASE jump, etc. and are rewarded with TV shows and after-dinner speaking.

I just find it interesting that some behaviour, on the basis of risk, is applauded whilst others are castigated.

[Daffodil]

I'd say saliva is pretty potent stuff re "neutralising" whatever's in the mouth too, same as stomach acid is.

True, but that isn't really the point.

Oral without carries risk. Bareback vagina carries risk. One is castigated, one is not.

The only difference is the difference in risk. A risk calculated by somewhat unreliable data.

I'd like to point out that I don't do bareback sex, with prossies anyway, but also don't judge others for doing it.

[smiths]

Here's an AW FR on a woman who tours the country doing BB

She has 80+ positive feedbacks and a number of FR's again all positive!!

This guy spent £30 for a 15 min BB session at the end of the day "sloppy seconds" or "stirring the porridge" I believe it's referred to.

PERSONALITY
"Allison was very outgoing, smiling and French kissing me as she guided my hand down to her sperm-laden pussy, which to my surprise was naked underneath her skimpy skirt."


SERVICES
"Full bareback sloppy seconds gfe with deep French kissing."

ABOUT THE MEETING
"Allison smiled and giggled wickedly as she French kissed me with lovely pert lips whilst guiding my hand to reveal her very spunky pussy which as i understand it had been cummed in by at least ten other equally lucky men that day.
I was so grateful she had made some time for me at the end of the day, and i knew by the wicked glint in her eyes that she was about to undo my trousers and sink her really well used but clean and immaculately tight pussy irrefusably onto my cock.
This she did with skill, and by god all that slippery semen from the dozen other barebackers before me really made me sink in easily.

I stirred around for a bit but couldn't hold back and soon filled her deeply with some more fresh clean sperm. By god this girl is wicked, filthy and so fuckable. Best bareback fuck ever. Sorry for late feedback!

Excellent value at only thirty quid, everyone has access to her at those prices. Amazing xx"

I know the BB think has been debated to death BUT FUCK ME.

He visited a woman that travels around doing BB for as little as 30 quid a time and thinks the idea of shagging her while she's full to overflowing with previous punter's "deposits" is amazing!

What WAS he thinking? Certainly not clearly with his brains...probably with his dick!
But to be honest reading the FR just makes my dick shrivel!!!

I think it's best summed up in his own words.

"Excellent value at only thirty quid, everyone has access to her at those prices. Amazing xx"

YES Everyone with 30 quid in their pocket despite any infections they may have   

This is what that creature Wife4Rent who was a member on here before getting banned posted she offered and that it was both popular and she liked multiple punters spunking up her giving her creampies. If this is what these consentual adults like then thats up to them obviously, i just view them as dirtbags.

[Ali Katt]

Bareback aside, she definitely isn't a hot chick.

[tazz]

Well i cant for one minute imagine wanting to book a rough whore, seems lots of guy do. Cant they just pick up a rough women in a bar or club or off an internet site. As for bareback i wounder why the whores are doing this, at it was never on offer 3 years ago. Must be the pimps pushing them into it and saying if they get HIV they can take a drug to cure it.

[Daffodil]

Well i cant for one minute imagine wanting to book a rough whore, seems lots of guy do. Cant they just pick up a rough women in a bar or club or off an internet site. As for bareback i wounder why the whores are doing this, at it was never on offer 3 years ago. Must be the pimps pushing them into it and saying if they get HIV they can take a drug to cure it.

The problem for me comes with the lack of discretion. One of the reasons I punt is because I'm in a relationship and punting allows me to do it anonymously and without having to spend the night out.

[Taggart]

In reply to the OP, WTF do you expect from a slut from Doncaster?????? (well that's her location aTM)

Looking at past FB and FRs, I get the impression she is travelling the country, which could really spread the risks of disease much wider. As for other punter's cum in her fanny, wouldn't it whiff?

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?

[Daffodil]

Well i cant for one minute imagine wanting to book a rough whore, seems lots of guy do. Cant they just pick up a rough women in a bar or club or off an internet site. As for bareback i wounder why the whores are doing this, at it was never on offer 3 years ago. Must be the pimps pushing them into it and saying if they get HIV they can take a drug to cure it.

A lot do it because they can charge extra for it. A lot do it because they're too stupid to know better. A lot do it because they're don't care for whatever reason.

However I do also believe that some women (maybe a lot of women) get turned on by bareback and enjoy it.

[Daffodil]

In reply to the OP, WTF do you expect from a slut from Doncaster?????? (well that's her location aTM)

Looking at past FB and FRs, I get the impression she is travelling the country, which could really spread the risks of disease much wider. As for other punter's cum in her fanny, wouldn't it whiff?

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?

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

[munterhunter]

I recently posted a youtube clip of a guy who 'flies' (read, falls) from a helicopter and travels about half a mile before shooting through a hole in a cliff face that is about 12ft x 12ft. His chances of dying/sustaining injury are far higher than those who bareback.

Human's enjoy risk. Some are attracted to it. Some (Baumgartner) are lauded for it, others (barebackers) are castigated.

Do you think that is because if the likes of Baumgartner makes a mistake he risks spreading himself all over the landscape, whereas if the barebacker makes a mistake he or she risks spreading much more?

That said I don't see how public ridicule will address the situation, if you go to the GUM their attitude isn't to chastise or castigate but to inform and highlight the risks based on their experience and expertise.

There are risks associated with most things. I'm comfortable with the information provided by the GUM staff, I don't really need to be convinced by a definitive study where a HIV positive guy gets to BB 100 women  and then do OWO CIM with another 100 to calculate the exact risk of infection.  You could argue well that's just one guy what if we repeated the "test" with someone with more or less advanced HIV.

Whether people tell lies about their sexual preferences or not, a significant factor in determining risk is based on credible research on the nature of each infection, how it is or can be transmitted, and how it can be treated and that's good enough for me.

I punt, I know the risks, and I choose the activities I feel comfortable with when I punt and in this way I minimise the risk to myself and to others.

It's not for me to say to this guy "Don't do BB" or to the lady, the one thing that can be said in her favour is that she is honest in her profile about it giving the punters the information to make an informed decision about whether or not to see her.

Each to their own, but when we see extreme examples like this I don't see the drama in raising the eyebrows and asking WTF???

[Daffodil]

Do you think that is because if the likes of Baumgartner makes a mistake he risks spreading himself all over the landscape, whereas if the barebacker makes a mistake he or she risks spreading much more?

That said I don't see how public ridicule will address the situation, if you go to the GUM their attitude isn't to chastise or castigate but to inform and highlight the risks based on their experience and expertise.

There are risks associated with most things. I'm comfortable with the information provided by the GUM staff, I don't really need to be convinced by a definitive study where a HIV positive guy gets to BB 100 women  and then do OWO CIM with another 100 to calculate the exact risk of infection.  You could argue well that's just one guy what if we repeated the "test" with someone with more or less advanced HIV.

Whether people tell lies about their sexual preferences or not, a significant factor in determining risk is based on credible research on the nature of each infection, how it is or can be transmitted, and how it can be treated and that's good enough for me.

I punt, I know the risks, and I choose the activities I feel comfortable with when I punt and in this way I minimise the risk to myself and to others.

It's not for me to say to this guy "Don't do BB" or to the lady, the one thing that can be said in her favour is that she is honest in her profile about it giving the punters the information to make an informed decision about whether or not to see her.

Each to their own, but when we see extreme examples like this I don't see the drama in raising the eyebrows and asking WTF???

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.

[broksonic]

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

[Daffodil]

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

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

[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

[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.

[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 

[munterhunter]

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  ) 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!   

[Daffodil]

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

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 

[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' 

[Taggart]

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

In that case, I apologise, publicly.

[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

[Dani]

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

[CoolTiger]

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

External Link/Members Only

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!

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.

[Madone1]

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

[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.