I am going to go against the trend here.
To try and temper the herd trampling over me I would point to the review I posted when a similar thing happened to me:
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=70952.0
Overall i agree with the sentiment that he should review her and warn us. However this is a forum that should (IMO) be supporting punters and helping them get to the right place. He asked a question about this and that perhaps indicates that he was confused and wanted to hear views and probably get to the right place.
I happen to agree with him on distancing the review from the meeting and if those that attacked this just look back on many many threads on security for punters they will see that come up again and again.
I do also wonder when I see the nature of the responses on the BB question whether a few people are trying to hide a guilty secret or two - a bit like the gay skinhead being particularly nasty to the gays!!
So to the OP I say that you should read the threads on STDs etc and think very hard about this, it is a different level of risk to OWO/RO and really not a good idea. Yes it feels great but with your sensible head on it is not worth it.
As for reviewing stick to your own policy if that is to wait a week or two but get the review up as soon as you feel able. Perhaps tweak some non critical details to protect yourself, such as changing the time of the day etc.
All very laudable to try to walk the higher moral ground BUT you have not fully understood whom you are defending,
re-read OP's postings.
1) He knew from the start he was courting controversy by refusing to name the SP (you could say he's trolling).
2) He confirmed that he wanted/intended to do it to her again, there's no indication this was a joke so, like his "promise" to review soon, we have to take him at face value i.e. he is an opportune barebacker willing to engage with SPs who don't advertise it. In fact he could already have been back as the first encounter was several weeks before the post.
3) He has already allowed several weeks of customers to run the (increased) risk of seeing her whilst he waited for symptoms to present and initial test results to materialise, presuming he's bothered to get tested. This is of course if he's genuinely a victim and could only be at risk of being infected. If he has herpes or is asymptomatic for other STDs then he could already have infected her and she's now infecting others.
4) Most of the first page of responses were not insulting just supporting the demand for the name of the SP. They only got more terse and insulting once OP responded with obstinate and inflammatory responses, rather than reasonably naming the SP because
it has already been several weeks since he saw her (the first time), but who knows how recently since he saw her last and perhaps Bb'd the fuck out of her again.
4) The claims about not wanting to be outed are sheer nonsense because if she doesn't do this often and he was "the only one" then he's already outed himself by posting about the singular, "memorable", incident. If, in fact she's a profligate, off-book BB'er then he may well be unmemorable to her but then he'll have been riding bare with all her other "secret BB" clients. Good luck with them odds.
His ONLY reason for not id'ing her is because he doesn't want her being hassled by other fuckwit punters demanding BB because it's alleged on UKP that she offers it. This has NOTHING to do with good intentions to this community and everything to do with enabling his own agenda of getting as much out of her as he can, the rest of us be damned.
The only retribution weeks/months after the first event is that she might id him and cut him off OR seek greater vengeance and perhaps reveal whatever details she has of him on here, SAFE and wherever else she's inclined. She could of course read the review, go batshit crazy and when next he comes round for his BB fix get him done over by her burly men friends or even trap him into an assault/rape accusation. Given shes nuts enough to BB a punter who knows how mad she might escalate things.
The ONLY honourable redeeming thing he can do several weeks after having dipped his bare dick in her is to state who she is so others can go get tested and others can avoid her risky behaviour.
People get banned for just being verbally unpleasant here, this guy is at the least conspiring to increase the infection risk to punters (and their sexual partners) by not identifying a known risk. If he is in fact infected then he has perpetrated assaults on every subsequently infected person. You may thing this conspiracy theory is too extreme but we don't know who this guy is or his agenda. If he's a reasonable guy then he should recognise these risk scenarios and all the more immediately put everyone back at ease.
