Pussy Licking & avoiding catching anything.

[Waterhouse]

Having read through all the responses on this thread I am minded to refocus my technique on pussy licking.

Special thanks to the Doc - you seem to give well balanced advice. 

In future I will concentrate on just havng a nice clitty lick rather than the more deep dive approach (tongue in) - I think this would likely reduce the chances of bacterial fluids being transferred.

Does that sound reasonable or is that bollocks? 

I wonder what percentage of blokes like to have a good muff dive - 50/50 or less than?

It's very rare for the guy to pick up an oral STI from an SP by giving RO, although not unheard of.

Me personally, I love paying attention with my mouth an tongue to the lady I see regularly.  A meet for me would not be complete without this.

[Drayki]

Having read through all the responses on this thread I am minded to refocus my technique on pussy licking.

Special thanks to the Doc - you seem to give well balanced advice. 

In future I will concentrate on just havng a nice clitty lick rather than the more deep dive approach (tongue in) - I think this would likely reduce the chances of bacterial fluids being transferred.

Does that sound reasonable or is that bollocks? 

I wonder what percentage of blokes like to have a good muff dive - 50/50 or less than?

There’s nothing better than getting your tongue in a whores pussy, the deeper and the better for me but that’s my option and a punt is just not the same without getting stuck in

[TailSeeker]

Nice try: only now inserting the qualified "solely". That's NOT what you said before which was an absolute claim that the ORIGIN is "so far only been associated with better cure and survival rates" which I called as BULLSHIT and now you are trying to row back from it.

Further, your talk of "less invasive and slower development" which relates to "STAGE NOT ORIGIN" which is EXACTLY what I called you out on. Again, nice try at rowing back, but restating the very thing you were called out on using your own words shows it was right to call you out on your BULLSHIT.

- FAKE DOCTOR

Utter, utter rubbish. I've already discussed the different strains of HSV1 and HSV2 and how you can be "reinfected" with HSV at the same site, albeit a different strain - you even go on to admit that below (highlighted in red, below). Although you don't go far enough. Why not just admit that your blanket assertion was bullshit and now you are attempting to row back.

- FAKE DOCTOR

You have said above: can get HSV1 and HSV2 at the same site as having one only gives "some protection (but not complete)"? And you you can get both at one site (see your qualifier of "unless") if you have a complication and/or are immunocompromised.

Why not just admit you were completely wrong in your blanket assertion that "70% of people have herpes orally, so can't get infected again" instead of completely undermining that claim by agreeing with what I said when I called you out on it and then presenting what I have said as your own???

- FAKE DOCTOR

Thanks for another example to support what I said in calling you out on your bullshit claim that "70% of people have herpes orally, so can't get infected again". This is lunacy...

- FAKE DOCTOR

Again - this goes completely against what you said before and completely supports what I said in calling you out on your bullshit.

- FAKE DOCTOR

Just give it up lady - you always come on here and spout completely incorrect medical assertions, and when called out on them (as you have been not only by me) you attempt to obfuscate and row back from them - as above, to the point where you completely undermine your own points you were called out on.

- FAKE DOCTOR

I'm done responding to your bullshit. If the members on here want to listen to your crap (and dangerously uninformed advice) then that's up to them. But you are a complete charlatan and have zero credibility whatsoever - which is evident when your - FAKE DOCTOR assertions are treated with the minutest level of scrutiny. You are nothing but a - FAKE DOCTOR and your bullshit advice on here is dangerous to punters who might be lulled into being less vigilant about their own health by following it.

At no point have I ever claimed to be a doctor so kindly quiet it with the *FAKE DOCTOR* crap. I'm a biomedical scientist who works in research around STDs and the cancers they cause.

Pointing out severe immuno compromised individuals (all of those exceptions are immuno compromised) as being possible exceptions (not proven, but suspected, diseases present differently in them from the norm, which you should know if you studied biology to a BSc level), does not undermine my point that in the norm it's not seen.

To throw scare tactics is wrong. Is there a risk with RO. Yes but it's much lower than anything else for getting an STD (other than handjobs or abstinence when it comes to intimate contact). The best evidence we have for RO risks come from WSW studies, then pairing them with MSW studies to get a fuller picture. And if you have an oral herpes strain already, you aren't getting it again (unless you are immuno compromised and even then it's debated).

[Moresomes]

At no point have I ever claimed to be a doctor so kindly quiet it with the *FAKE DOCTOR* crap. I'm a biomedical scientist who works in research around STDs and the cancers they cause.

Pointing out severe immuno compromised individuals (all of those exceptions are immuno compromised) as being possible exceptions (not proven, but suspected, diseases present differently in them from the norm, which you should know if you studied biology to a BSc level), does not undermine my point that in the norm it's not seen.

To throw scare tactics is wrong. Is there a risk with RO. Yes but it's much lower than anything else for getting an STD (other than handjobs or abstinence when it comes to intimate contact). The best evidence we have for RO risks come from WSW studies, then pairing them with MSW studies to get a fuller picture. And if you have an oral herpes strain already, you aren't getting it again (unless you are immuno compromised and even then it's debated).

Another measured and informative response. Keep it up, and don't be put off by the big shouty red capitals. They mean nothing.
The poster can be forgiven for confusing a doctor with a biomedical scientist as he has already confirmed that he can not differentiate between a theory and a fact. 

[Wooderz]

People often differentiate between the nasty looking skanks seen rotting on street corners and those oh so elegant an superior hoes charging 3 figures on AW.. But bear in mind disease is no respecter of status and few people would consider getting as intimate in many ways with a 10 min splash and dash as a 1 hour fluffyfest with tongues..

[holeymoley]

Another measured and informative response. Keep it up, and don't be put off by the big shouty red capitals. They mean nothing.
The poster can be forgiven for confusing a doctor with a biomedical scientist as he has already confirmed that he can not differentiate between a theory and a fact.

+1

[TailSeeker]

People often differentiate between the nasty looking skanks seen rotting on street corners and those oh so elegant an superior hoes charging 3 figures on AW.. But bear in mind disease is no respecter of status and few people would consider getting as intimate in many ways with a 10 min splash and dash as a 1 hour fluffyfest with tongues..

Very true. If you drop condoms doesn't matter your price bracket. Diseases don't discriminate. They're just opportunistic. Get lax and they'll likely jump in. Key is to be tested regularly and play safe, whether WG or punter.

[Wooderz]

Very true. If you drop condoms doesn't matter your price bracket. Diseases don't discriminate. They're just opportunistic. Get lax and they'll likely jump in. Key is to be tested regularly and play safe, whether WG or punter.

Playing safe means basically shagging like most street girls do it. No kissing. No OWO. Johnny on and 5 mins to shoot. Pull out and keep your hands off the rubber because its coated in fannyjuice.. wet wipes and clean up. Go home and shit yourself if johnny breaks.. Ask yourself if it is worth it. quit punting and relax with civvies.. Catch clap, mono and every other fucking imaginable flu like and nasty virus from women who "haven't had sex for ages and only one previous partner".. yeah.. and a gangbang last week you didn't bother mentioning.. 

[Doc Holliday]

Very true. If you drop condoms doesn't matter your price bracket. Diseases don't discriminate. They're just opportunistic. Get lax and they'll likely jump in. Key is to be tested regularly and play safe, whether WG or punter.

Indeed it really is that simple .. yet we overanalyse the minutiae so much.

[Wooderz]

Considering women are at a far higher risk of catching nasties from men one can understand folks questioning the mental health of all sp's..

I know I  used to wonder when I was younger how so many women seemed happy to bareback strangers and I am talking civvies, during the peak of the 90's AIDS scaremongering. Men were greatly put off that I knew, women, seemed scarcely concerned.. ?

[Fat Bob]

Pointing out severe immuno compromised individuals (all of those exceptions are immuno compromised) as being possible exceptions (not proven, but suspected, diseases present differently in them from the norm.

...And if you have an oral herpes strain already, you aren't getting it again (unless you are immuno compromised and even then it's debated).

TS, all this talk of immuno-compromised has piqued my interest in T-cell helper/suppressor ratios and would be interested to hear your thoughts.  I'm aware that it is common place for asthmatics (ranging from mild to acute) to be prescribed prednisolone as a steriod to help control asthmatic episodes.  I am also aware that the downside of these meds is that it suppresses the immune system thereby creating a window of opportunity for infections, particularly in the upper respiratory tract and throat.  Would it it be fair to say that a punter taking prednisolone could inadvertently elevate his risk of infection if he participates in RO without protection?

[One Eyed Snake]

Like a lot of us I love RO...and I can probably say that my tongue has been in more fanny's than my knob...but I can say for definite is that many times and sometimes within an hour or so I've ended up with the shits..only for 24 hrs but definitely caused by me 'going down' on a WG...I'm not saying that they were unclean,but,yes,caused by giving RO......will I stop...nope not while I've got a tongue in my head.

But isn't it worth it.

[Waterhouse]

But isn't it worth it.

Opinions vary. I also wouldn't consider a meet complete without RO and wouldn't ever look to cut it out.

[Fat Bob]

...I also wouldn't consider a meet complete without RO and wouldn't ever look to cut it out.

+1

[Home Alone]

Opinions vary. I also wouldn't consider a meet complete without RO and wouldn't ever look to cut it out.

And me.

I love it when they cum - even when I suspect the reaction's put on    - from RO.

[SlamBoy]

At no point have I ever claimed to be a doctor so kindly quiet it with the *FAKE DOCTOR* crap.

The only thing that is crap on here is:

(1) the incorrect medical advice and analysis you give that you then have to row back on when called out on it; and

(3) the little army of fluffy twats you are gathering who can't see past your tits long enough to objectively scrutinise the bullshit you are spreading.

Pointing out severe immuno compromised individuals (all of those exceptions are immuno compromised) as being possible exceptions (not proven, but suspected, diseases present differently in them from the norm, which you should know if you studied biology to a BSc level), does not undermine my point that in the norm it's not seen.

Yes it absolutely does. Nice try trying to row back from your overly-broad (i.e. incorrect) generalisations advice which makes your statement incorrect. You rowing back after I call you out on them shows that not only was your original claim incorrect, but that you have been forced to admit it. Nice try though.

To throw scare tactics is wrong.

No one has 'thrown' scare tactics. YOU have given incorrect advice. That is wrong. And your incorrect advice has been exposed. So either stop doing it, or keep it to yourself.

I only care about punters: because I am one. I also think the prudence principle is the best way to proceed if you are a punter worried about STIs - which is why I called out your careless and incorrect statements (which you now agree are incorrect).

You only care about coming on here and trying to impress people: so as to get more bookings. Its obvious. You might be impressing the gullible and the fluffies. You are not impressing anyone with an ounce of forensic discernment.

Is there a risk with RO. Yes . . .

Exactly - Again, thanks for back-tracking. so stop trying to incorrectly give the impression that risk is lower than it is with your incorrect advice. Again, I'm glad you are backtracking on your over-generalisations. I refer you to what I've said about about the prudence principle and the protection of punters. Something I care about. Something you don't.

. . . And if you have an oral herpes strain already, you aren't getting it again (unless you are immuno compromised and even then it's debated).

No one has ever said that you are. Once again, you fail to grasp the argument that has been clearly stated above - probably for the same reason why you keep making incorrect claims - i.e. you are very poor at data analysis and comprehension (maybe why you have to supplement your lab job with whoring).

You originally stated once you get herpes you can't get it again. I corrected you and pointed out that you can contract one strain and then another HSV1 or HSV2 - once again, you are going back to adopting a half truth to making a misleading claim.

Stop being so reckless with your incorrect advice to punters.

[SlamBoy]

And I will not stop calling out your incorrect advice whether your fluffies like it or not. Because I care about punters.

[SlamBoy]

Another measured and informative response. Keep it up, and don't be put off by the big shouty red capitals.They mean nothing . . .

Hidden Image/Members Only

But my correct arguments mean everything. Nice try fluffy.

Keep sacrificing punters' welfare to cream in with a prozzie. 

[Waterhouse]

The only thing that is crap on here is:

(1) the incorrect medical advice and analysis you give that you then have to row back on when called out on it; and

(3) the little army of fluffy twats you are gathering who can't see past your tits long enough to objectively scrutinise the bullshit you are spreading.

What happened to point (2)?   

You only care about coming on here and trying to impress people: so as to get more bookings. Its obvious. You might be impressing the gullible and the fluffies. You are not impressing anyone with an ounce of forensic discernment.

You didn't seem grasp the difference between a theory and a fact on a previous thread but I trust you do know what irony is?

And I will not stop calling out your incorrect advice whether your fluffies like it or not. Because I care about punters.

Truth to tell I don't need you to care about me. I can do that myself without seeing confrontational and apparent vendetta fuelled responses to what are only meant to be well intentioned posts by someone who like yourself works in the research arena.

As the good Doc has already pointed out, there are ways and means of challenging any info which a member posts on here without resorting to such bitter criticism or malice.  Relax a bit and let that bee out of your bonnet.

As it stands, your replies to her come across in very much the same vein as those of FBM towards KT, and look how that ended.

[Doc Holliday]

TBH Tailseeker didn't do herself any favours by coming back at him again 'arguing detail' that nobody else gives a shit about apart from the pair of them. They both had the opportunity to move on.

And I will not stop calling out your incorrect advice whether your fluffies like it or not. Because I care about punters.

Bollocks it's nothing to do with you caring about punters welfare your rants are personal and if you think everyone cannot see that then you are deluded. This is why you are pursuing her.

You only care about coming on here and trying to impress people: so as to get more bookings. Its obvious.

I am open to be proved wrong though if you can show me where you have confronted anyone else were they have given bad medical advice and their is shit loads of it around.
FFS the guy who started this thread douses his cock in Listerine!!

[SlamBoy]

What happened to point (2)?   

Is that the best you've got? Yes it is. Pitiful.

You didn't seem grasp the difference between a theory and a fact on a previous thread but I trust you do know what irony is?

I know perfectly well the difference. Your inability to comprehend the concept betrays only your lack of capability.

Truth to tell I don't need you to care about me. I can do that myself without seeing confrontational and apparent vendetta fuelled responses to what are only meant to be well intentioned posts by someone who like yourself works in the research arena.

Truth to tell: don't make the mistake of thinking I care about you. I care about decent punters who come here to seek both advice and knowledge to protect themselves which is why I call out her incorrect, negligent and dangerous advice. And I will continue to do so. You, however, are a known fluffy who once again is demonstrating that your priority is quite pathetically attempting to endear yourself to a WG (with your supportive messages to her, despite her being a charlatan) rather than caring about the potential danger she is putting punters in with her demonstrated incorrect advice.

As the good Doc has already pointed out, there are ways and means of challenging any info which a member posts on here without resorting to such bitter criticism or malice.  Relax a bit and let that bee out of your bonnet.

Who died and made you the decorum/language king? Get in your lane. You clearly have a much higher opinion of yourself than others do, and drastically overestimate your ability to influence tone. How about you stop trying to tell other punters what to do, and check your priorities? We all know this board can be rough and tumble. It has always been that way. Sometimes less so, sometimes moreso. If you want everyone else to tow the chorus line of fluffydom in which you reside, you would probably be better suited to that other board where you can write "treat her well, guys" and "what happed between us will stay between us". When I see bullshit, I will call it bullshit - whether that prompts your fluffy/white knight tendencies or not.

As it stands, your replies to her come across in very much the same vein as those of FBM towards KT, and look how that ended.

There is a big difference between personal abuse and legitimately criticising someone (even vehemently). I have done the latter, not the former. But nice try. I see you have her playbook of distraction and deflection. It won't work. Again, nice try. Any independently minded punter (i.e. not a fluffy like yourself) who reads my responses to that charlatan will see both from the points I have made (however they were made) and her attempts to backtrack in the face of them, that they were completely legitimate. They will also see that I have made them NOT because of any "vendetta" (how pathetic) but because they are fucking incorrect and she is a fucking charlatan who puts punters in danger (see what I did there?)

You don't see that, of course, because you are more concerned with controlling how punters on here express themselves rather than facing the real issue which is that charlatan being called out on her dangerous advice and disservice to punters.

 

[SlamBoy]

Bollocks it's nothing to do with you caring about punters welfare your rants are personal and if you think everyone cannot see that then you are deluded. This is why you are pursuing her.

Really? Your assertion that I am pursuing her is demonstrably wrong. Why? Because I do not comment on anything she posts other than when she jumps on threads to spout incorrect and dangerous advice that potentially puts punters at risk. Go and check the record yourself. Why would that be? Because I care about her potentially putting punters in danger, and she (and seemingly you) does not.

Nice try though. Don't confuse tone with substance (hard for you and your fluffy mate on here, I know).

[Doc Holliday]

Made my day being called a fluffy. First time ever I think in over 15 years on punting forums.  Thanks for that.

You didn't actually answer my question though?

No need .... anyone still reading and who hasn't lost the will to live, will have long made their own minds up long ago.

Chill out fella quit while you are behind and go and shag some nice undergraduate 

[SlamBoy]

You didn't actually answer my question though?

At no point did you take issue with the actual criticisms I made about the incorrect advice the charlatan was giving punters on this thread. Not once. Why? Because I rightly called the incorrect advice out for being negligent, wrong and a danger to punters, and I stated reasons why - as a consequence she backtracked because she recognised she was wrong, and I was right to call her out.

And your response? All you and your fluffy mate did was say (and I summarise): please stop criticising the charlatan. You both then tried to cream in with her and trying sooth her fragile ego with your words.

Frankly, it's pathetic, and you should be ashamed at yourselves for so publicly demonstrating your white knight and fluffy disposition. You will get no credit in here for that . . . that's why I didn't engage with any question - there was nothing to engage with that was relevant. I was right to call her out for her dangerous inaccuracies, and you and your fluffy mate are wrong to rush to defend her for potentially putting punters in danger.

[Moresomes]

But my correct arguments mean everything. Nice try fluffy.

You mean like your one about theories and facts?   

Anyway, I don't like to see you all worked up and tearful like you are, so dry your eyes and save yourself a lot of petulant keyboard pounding by simply posting the attached every time another member chooses not to piss up your leg.

External Link/Members Only   

[Doc Holliday]

External Link/Members Only

[Waterhouse]

Hidden Image/Members Only

[TailSeeker]

TS, all this talk of immuno-compromised has piqued my interest in T-cell helper/suppressor ratios and would be interested to hear your thoughts.  I'm aware that it is common place for asthmatics (ranging from mild to acute) to be prescribed prednisolone as a steriod to help control asthmatic episodes.  I am also aware that the downside of these meds is that it suppresses the immune system thereby creating a window of opportunity for infections, particularly in the upper respiratory tract and throat.  Would it it be fair to say that a punter taking prednisolone could inadvertently elevate his risk of infection if he participates in RO without protection?

I'm afraid I only have a glancing knowledge of asthma, and the medications to treat it. Unfortunately it's not been brought up in my lab (perhaps something we should change). I would advise you talk to someone who specialises in that asthma.

If you don't know someone, I would say err on the side of caution and use dental dams/abstain from RO until someone who knows better can state the risk that you may or may not be looking at.

[TailSeeker]

1) no one is backing me up here because they're "fluffies". I'm fairly certain more than one has called me out on other postings. Or insulted me someone. People disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're a fluffy.

2) clarifying what I actually typed vs what you want to believe I typed is not back tracking. But that's a you problem not a me problem.

3) getting HSV1 in the same site you have HSV2 doesn't happen. Getting it elsewhere can happen, but lower risk as studies are showing. Nothing I have ever said has disputed that. Kindly quote where I said otherwise (and do remember we're talking about oral sex here, so quotations on this thread are about oral contraction, we've only been talking about oral contraction of STDs).

Also. I get nothing from posting on STD threads (which is mostly what I post on).

As for me fucking people and evidently being shite at my job. Anyone with any actual knowledge of academic research would laugh at the idea of that. Do you actually know the average salary of a researcher? 1 in 5 science PhDs do sex work, similar, but lower, number for postdocs, less as you go up. And yes that does include men as well as women. All the way up. Pay is shite, no one in academic based research would dispute that.

In the meantime, how about dropping the exaggeration in replies and respond to me like I had a dick. Or stick to your initial statement never to respond to me in this thread.

[cotton]

Re "Fluffy""Fluffies" - this just reflects the tendency of some guys to blindly come to the defence of a damsel in distress , maybe in many ways its not a bad impulse , but on this forum blind chivalry isnt encouraged because it goes against the whole ethos of the site which is objective and dispassionate evaluation of female hookers.
Your clearly very astute and able to stick up for yourself , and so long as your happy discussing medical minutae with slamboy i dont see the need for your cheerleading team defending you, it might even be perceived that its actually rather sexist and disrespectful to you that your defended like this , i havnt seen you asking to be given any special treatment.
Maybe you could tell then to pipe down and that you can deal with slamboy yourself.

[Doc Holliday]

Re "Fluffy""Fluffies" - this just reflects the tendency of some guys to blindly come to the defence of a damsel in distress , maybe in many ways its not a bad impulse , but on this forum blind chivalry isn’t encouraged because it goes against the whole ethos of the site which is objective and dispassionate evaluation of female hookers.
 

Absolutely right which as someone who spent years attacking fanboys amused me no end to be called one 
However whilst there may be a small element of that in this thread it’s more a case of Slamboy having dug himself in a hole with his aggressive style attacks found himself on the back foot and resorted to the ‘fluffy defence’ in the hope that others would rally to his side. I’ve seen this 'fall back' many times also.

Slamboy said this in response to my post when I accused him of a vendetta against one person.

That's a very fair post. I read it, and there isn't a lot on it I disagree with
I care about punters. Because I am one. I am sick of completely unqualified chancers who give completely inaccurate information to punters which (if followed by a punter) could compromise the punter's health.
It isn't a personal vendetta - if I saw it, I would call it out no matter who it came from

I challenged that by asking this

I am open to be proved wrong though if you can show me where you have confronted anyone else were they have given bad medical advice and there is shit loads of it around.
FFS the guy who started this thread douses his cock in Listerine!!

He ignored that part of my post and to date he hasn’t answered me, but if he can show me where he has called out anyone else (male or female) on a medical matter I will reconsider my view.

Your clearly very astute and able to stick up for yourself , and so long as your happy discussing medical minutae with slamboy …

Actually I think they both should have given it a rest some time ago as the minutiae are of little interest to the wider audience. If it was purely an academic discussion of the finer points between two scientists, it should have gone to PM but it wasn’t it was just a confrontation carried on from this thread

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=237033.0

[SlamBoy]

Absolutely right which as someone who spent years attacking fanboys amused me no end to be called one 

You were called a fluffy because you were being one. Instead of taking issue with the substantive issues I raised (you did not). All you did was ride your white charger, adorned with your fluffy armour to ask that I not address an SP in a particular tone. That was white-knighing, that was being a fluffy.

However whilst there may be a small element of that in this thread it’s more a case of Slamboy having dug himself in a hole with his aggressive style attacks found himself on the back foot and resorted to the ‘fluffy defence’ in the hope that others would rally to his side. I’ve seen this 'fall back' many times also.

No. Nice try though. I took substantive issue with her demonstrably false claims (which made her backtrack). So how have I possibly 'dug a hole' from which to be 'defensive' - answer: I haven't. I refuted incorrect medical advice from a discredited SP who keeps putting punters in potential danger (who you keep supporting and defending - why, I do not know - other than being a fluffy). I called out your white-knighting and fluffiness for what it is. See above.

Slamboy said this in response to my post when I accused him of a vendetta against one person. I challenged that by asking this. He ignored that part of my post and to date he hasn’t answered me, but if he can show me where he has called out anyone else (male or female) on a medical matter I will reconsider my view.

No. I said it because you were being a fluffy (and you still are).

If I see any false medical claims on the board that potentially put punters in danger (there may be some I haven't seen), I will call them out if they are within my sphere of knowledge.

You didn't ask a question - there was no question mark anywhere in your post. Even if you did (which you didn't), I don't have to do your running - do it yourself. I have called out the 'fake doctor' on her incorrect and dangerous medical advice, because I have seen it - and she has an extensive history of it - you have never taken issue with any of the substantive medical points I have made (you can't because they are correct) - but you have charged in in your white fluffy armour to rescue the poor maiden.

Archetypal fluffy and white-knighting behaviour. Pathetic.

Actually I think they both should have given it a rest some time ago as the minutiae are of little interest to the wider audience. If it was purely an academic discussion of the finer points between two scientists, it should have gone to PM but it wasn’t it was just a confrontation carried on from this thread

I agree with that. But her behaviour doesn't allow it. If she keeps insisting on posting incorrect and dangerous medical advice publicly on here, I will keep refuting it publicly so any punter who would may have been put in danger by it can see that she is wrong and (hopefully) will not act on her advice.

[Doc Holliday]

If I see any false medical claims on the board that potentially put punters in danger (there may be some I haven't seen), I will call them out if they are within my sphere of knowledge.

You didn't ask a question - there was no question mark anywhere in your post. Even if you did (which you didn't), I don't have to do your running - do it yourself.

Jeez ... you are now blaming my lack of punctuation for not answering my question!

Your just backtracking fella to avoid answering it and continuing to try the fluffy argument as a diversion. No way am I reading all your posts to see if you have criticised any other member. You made the statement it's up to you to back it up.

I'm done here until you demonstrate you have ever called anyone else out on a medical matter? Then I will apologise.

[Wooderz]

Forum spats usually bore everyone apart from the folk involved which is why most folk ignore requests to "side take"..

I can only say I am interested in all opinions and data in this area of concern as we all should be.

We can choose to believe whatever suits. Google provides all manner of "info".. from all kinds of "experts".. Some have an obvious agenda.. Some make a living off it..

Personally in all regards, I see risk of catching nasties to be on a level with risks we take daily when driving..

Drive over speed limits and you will usually get away with it, but thats obviously dependant on many factors..

But I have been copped and clipped by cameras despite being my car being full of tech to enable me to identify risks on the road as I rip around in my fast car..

Some Std's are a fucking nuisance that last longer than 3 points..

Some come back and bite decades later it seems.

Some are not really classed as soley Std's because you can get them from kissing etc..

I wonder how many people who have had glandular fever will be dying from lymphoma 40 years later?

[SlamBoy]

Jeez ... you are now blaming my lack of punctuation for not answering my question!

Your just backtracking fella to avoid answering it and continuing to try the fluffy argument as a diversion. No way am I reading all your posts to see if you have criticised any other member. You made the statement it's up to you to back it up.

I'm done here until you demonstrate you have ever called anyone else out on a medical matter? Then I will apologise.

There was no question. As I said above, even if there had been (which there wasn't) I am not obliged to do your running.

You being a white-knighting fluffy is not a diversion. You did not criticise any of the medical points I raised. You just jumped in to attempt to stop me from rightly contradicting an SP in a way you didn't like. Every single punter on here can read the thread and see it for themselves - it is white-knighting and fluffy behaviour in its purest form. You're busted, fluffy fan-boy. There goes your credibility (not that you ever had any).

I'm even less interested in an apology from you than I am in looking through posts for you.

[workinallweek]

There was no question. As I said above, even if there had been (which there wasn't) I am not obliged to do your running.

You being a white-knighting fluffy is not a diversion. You did not criticise any of the medical points I raised. You just jumped in to attempt to stop me from rightly contradicting an SP in a way you didn't like. Every single punter on here can read the thread and see it for themselves - it is white-knighting and fluffy behaviour in its purest form. You're busted, fluffy fan-boy. There goes your credibility (not that you ever had any).

I'm even less interested in an apology from you than I am in looking through posts for you.

Slam Boy  go on a punt ffs

[sparkus]

I don't do RO on WGs via AW etc but I routinely do it in TCMs and what really has my worried is the frequency I also do it on the missus (I wouldn't even be with her if it wasn't for what she has down there).

Not sure if I want to prioritise jugs or RO today but my mouth is gonna be busy either way, thanks Teesside bloke for the inspiration!