Unexpected bareback.... (Yes I know)

[Bigowl]

Ok apologies on my sense of humour

Main reason I reposted was so she could be blacklisted etc
I know in the barebackers post it wasn't really highlighted as the account was gone, so it's more awareness than anything

[Beamer]

Ok apologies on my sense of humour

Main reason I reposted was so she could be blacklisted etc
I know in the barebackers post it wasn't really highlighted as the account was gone, so it's more awareness than anything

What sense of humour.  You are a 1st  class prat.

[Blackpool Rock]

Are you for real, I've had to post nearly 20 times on this thread to prevent people getting the wrong idea of what went on. It eventually calms down and you think it's fucking funny to to revive it.

It's a good job for you that I'm true to my word when I say what is said by PM remains private, though I have to admit crass stupidity does tempt my to change my mind.

Words actually fail me.

Ever wish you hadn't bothered 
Some people are beyond help 

[Pedalwall]

Sorry!! I just found it amusing,
I was pm'd telling me she was back

Sorry for stirring it, but life is dull at home!

When you started this original thread there was a suspicion you were an attention seeking prat but you were then given the benefit of the doubt. with this 'bump' people were correct in their original thinking. If you're bored do a jigsaw!!

[MrMatrix]

If you're happy Daviemac then we should all be happy and give OP benifit of doubt- this should be the end of the thread then
Bet its not though

Bloody hell is this thread still dragging along...

[Beamer]

Bloody hell is this thread still dragging along...

It's unbelievable that the idiot "bumped" this. He is an attention seeking twat.

[MrMatrix]

It's unbelievable that the idiot "bumped" this. He is an attention seeking twat.

He certainly is. 

[LLPunting]

When you started this original thread there was a suspicion you were an attention seeking prat but you were then given the benefit of the doubt. with this 'bump' people were correct in their original thinking. If you're bored do a jigsaw!!

Better still, use the jigsaw on yourself and don't bother calling 999 as they're plenty busy saving people worth their attention.

[Benjboy87]

It seems that many people miss the point here....

So the guy fucked a whore bareback...who cares?

The fact is, if you wear a condom, then what's the problem? Does it matter if she is bare fucking some bloke if you wlare wearing a condom anyway? You wear a fucking condom to protect yourself against disease and infection. Whether or not the girl has bare fucked the guy doesnt change that.

So in my oponion, no need to name and shame because your chances of catching something seeing that girl is no different.

[Rochelle]

It seems that many people miss the point here....

So the guy fucked a whore bareback...who cares?

The fact is, if you wear a condom, then what's the problem? Does it matter if she is bare fucking some bloke if you wlare wearing a condom anyway? You wear a fucking condom to protect yourself against disease and infection. Whether or not the girl has bare fucked the guy doesnt change that.

So in my oponion, no need to name and shame because your chances of catching something seeing that girl is no different.

Actually, it is different. If you use a condom to fuck a girl that usually uses condoms, there will be a lower risk than using a condom to fuck a girl who always goes bareback. That's just simple common sense. You don't need to be a scientist or health professional to know that.

[daviemac]

It seems that many people miss the point here....

So the guy fucked a whore bareback...who cares?

The fact is, if you wear a condom, then what's the problem? Does it matter if she is bare fucking some bloke if you wlare wearing a condom anyway? You wear a fucking condom to protect yourself against disease and infection. Whether or not the girl has bare fucked the guy doesnt change that.

So in my oponion, no need to name and shame because your chances of catching something seeing that girl is no different.

Of course it's different, totally different levels of risk. Quite simply a woman who only barebacks her partner, FWB or whatever and has an idea of their history is a fairly low risk of having an STI. An escort who barebacks any punter who walks through the door is massively at risk.

If you have sex with someone who does not have an STI you have zero chance of catching anything. If you have sex with someone who does the chances of you catching something are infinitely higher. Condom breakages etc, skin to skin contact, oral gonorrhoea.

So if you want to chance fucking a filthy barebacking skank like this one you carry on, but please don't punt in my area.

[Benjboy87]

We all know many girls bareback on the sly.

My point is that naming that girl in question means nothing as chances are you'll see a different girl but the risk is almost certainly the same.

In this game, assume every girl barebacks.

So on that basis, the risk is no different.

[daviemac]

We all know many girls bareback on the sly.

My point is that naming that girl in question means nothing as chances are you'll see a different girl but the risk is almost certainly the same.

In this game, assume every girl barebacks.

So on that basis, the risk is no different.

Just shows how little knowledge you have if you think there's no difference in having sex with someone infected and someone not. You really need to have a word with your GUM clinic.

Naming the girl gives those who care about their sexual health the chance to avoid a absolute skank like this one. I know more about the circumstances than you BTW.

You feel free to go and shag her but I wouldn't even with a borrowed cock.   

[Jerk Chicken]

We all know many girls bareback on the sly.

My point is that naming that girl in question means nothing as chances are you'll see a different girl but the risk is almost certainly the same.

In this game, assume every girl barebacks.

So on that basis, the risk is no different.

+1

Under the table barebackers is far greater than many punters want to accept.

Most punters accept punting is a very risky business and goe into it with their eyes open. Unfortunately some believe what the WG tells them and/or what's written on the profile.

Attention seeker or not OP's post should be of no surprise.

[Benjboy87]

Just shows how little knowledge you have if you think there's no difference in having sex with someone infected and someone not. You really need to have a word with your GUM clinic.

Naming the girl gives those who care about their sexual health the chance to avoid a absolute skank like this one. I know more about the circumstances than you BTW.

You feel free to go and shag her but I wouldn't even with a borrowed cock.   

So you know for a fact she is infected?

That my point. You dont know for a fact anything.
I never said shagging her is shagging an infectious person. Shagging her may be more safe then shagging a different escort who may or may not do bareback sex with more clients.

You assume because she fucked a guy without a condom she must be infectious. But you should make the same assumptions for every girl out there.

[Blackpool Rock]

So you know for a fact she is infected?

That my point. You dont know for a fact anything.
I never said shagging her is shagging an infectious person. Shagging her may be more safe then shagging a different escort who may or may not do bareback sex with more clients.

You assume because she fucked a guy without a condom she must be infectious. But you should make the same assumptions for every girl out there.

Part of Daviemac's reply #260
If you have sex with someone who does not have an STI you have zero chance of catching anything. If you have sex with someone who does the chances of you catching something are infinitely higher. Condom breakages etc, skin to skin contact, oral gonorrhoea.

Read the thread properly, oh and when your in a hole stop digging 



Hidden Image/Members Only

[Benjboy87]

Part of Daviemac's reply #260
If you have sex with someone who does not have an STI you have zero chance of catching anything. If you have sex with someone who does the chances of you catching something are infinitely higher. Condom breakages etc, skin to skin contact, oral gonorrhoea.

Read the thread properly, oh and when your in a hole stop digging 



Hidden Image/Members Only

Ok so you know for absolute certainty what escort is infected and what escort isnt?

[Blackpool Rock]

Ok so you know for absolute certainty what escort is infected and what escort isnt?

No and nobody has said that have they 

It is (or should be) obvious, OK answer this question -

You turn up to punt a girl and use a condom, on balance over a number of years punting a range of different girls are you more likely to contract an STI with

A - A girl who doesn't ever Bareback punters or
B - A girl who does offer Bareback albeit perhaps only to regulars etc

Straight choice A or B

[Benjboy87]

No and nobody has said that have they 

It is (or should be) obvious, OK answer this question -

You turn up to punt a girl and use a condom, on balance over a number of years punting a range of different girls are you more likely to contract an STI with

A - A girl who doesn't ever Bareback punters or
B - A girl who does offer Bareback albeit perhaps only to regulars etc

Straight choice A or B

A is not a genuine answer because most girls have done bb on the sly.

Again that's my point.
Assume ALL girls fuck bare at some point with certain clients.

ALL

[Rochelle]

A is not a genuine answer because most girls have done bb on the sly.

Again that's my point.
Assume ALL girls fuck bare at some point with certain clients.

ALL

Bollocks.

[Kev40ish]

A is not a genuine answer because most girls have done bb on the sly.

Again that's my point.
Assume ALL girls fuck bare at some point with certain clients.

ALL

Tend to agree here.. look after your own protection.  Never assume your safe or meeting a safer girl we just don’t know, only their word to go on..

But to mitigate the risk best to avoid known BB girls, as there is a definite greater risk due to the clients they see..

[Blackpool Rock]

A is not a genuine answer because most girls have done bb on the sly.

Again that's my point.
Assume ALL girls fuck bare at some point with certain clients.

ALL

Where is your proof for that 
Is that from your own personal experience of punting where you have either enquired about it or been offered it 

My own personal experience from about 18 years of punting 30-40 girls a year is that i've only ever been offered BB once on the basis that the girl had left home in a rush to get to the hotel and forgotten to bring condoms

[Benjboy87]

Where is your proof for that 
Is that from your own personal experience of punting where you have either enquired about it or been offered it 

My own personal experience from about 18 years of punting 30-40 girls a year is that i've only ever been offered BB once on the basis that the girl had left home in a rush to get to the hotel and forgotten to bring condoms

Ok so a girl states in her profile that she does not do bsreback at all, never, ever.
So you book her.
In the booking, things are going well, it's all heated and erotic. She starts grinding and it's about to slip in.

Do you stop her? And if so, why?

[Blackpool Rock]

Ok so a girl states in her profile that she does not do bsreback at all, never, ever.
So you book her.
In the booking, things are going well, it's all heated and erotic. She starts grinding and it's about to slip in.

Do you stop her? And if so, why?

Stop diverting

[Benjboy87]

The answer to that will answer my point.

[daviemac]

The answer to that will answer my point.

You are totally missing the point so I'll ask you to answer this, Who has the greater chance of becoming infected with an STI, a girl who barebacks all comers who she knows nothing about and any one could well be infected but withing the incubation period and therefore asymptomatic. Or the girl who takes precautions with every punter and only barebacks her trusted partner.   

Whilst I agree no one knows who bareback who but if you go with one who openly offers it the risk increases massively, no matter what precautions you take. 

[Jerk Chicken]

Tend to agree here.. look after your own protection.  Never assume your safe or meeting a safer girl we just don’t know, only their word to go on..

But to mitigate the risk best to avoid known BB girls, as there is a definite greater risk due to the clients they see..

This sums it up nicely for me and there is not much to argue on this viewpoint. Covers all evils in this thread so far.

[Doc Holliday]

You are totally missing the point so I'll ask you to answer this, Who has the greater chance of becoming infected with an STI, a girl who barebacks all comers who she knows nothing about and any one could well be infected but withing the incubation period and therefore asymptomatic. Or the girl who takes precautions with every punter and only barebacks her trusted partner.   

Whilst I agree no one knows who bareback who but if you go with one who openly offers it the risk increases massively, no matter what precautions you take.

All true but would dispute 'massively'. The risk is only massively increased if you also don't wear a condom. If you wear a condom then there is a slightly increased risk, but many other factors then come into place including which sti under discussion.

EDIT I would add that (as I have posted many times before) investigating someone's sexual history is something of a waste of energy ... unless you are actually actively looking for BB sex. It's what you don't know as much as what you do.

[daviemac]

All true but would dispute 'massively'. The risk is only massively increased if you also don't wear a condom. If you wear a condom then there is a slightly increased risk, but many other factors then come into place including which sti under discussion.

I prefer to err on the side of caution, as far as I'm concerned me having any form of sexual contact with someone who has any kind of STI increases the risk to me massively, condoms don't protect you from them all.

I'll live by that and actively avoid those I believe to have a high risk of being infected.  IE those who openly offer or are known to offer bareback to anybody.

Everybody is free to make their own decisions, but believe me the risk this slag poses is MASSIVE.

I'm not going to go through it all again so I'll leave it here, what others do or think is up to them, I'll continue with the way I see things.

[Avg_Joe]

the current more at risk or not argument is not the point.... the point your all missing, is that if some poor fucker has a condom break, then that persons risk exposure has dramatically changed, whether she's a known or stealth bb'er.... so with that in mind, and given we are all just as likely as the next guy to have a condom fail, we should have the information to assess what risk we want to take.

as for the OP here..... fucking dumb cunt

[Doc Holliday]

I prefer to err on the side of caution, as far as I'm concerned me having any form of sexual contact with someone who has any kind of STI increases the risk to me massively, condoms don't protect you from them all.

I'll live by that and actively avoid those I believe to have a high risk of being infected.  IE those who openly offer or are known to offer bareback to anybody.

Everybody is free to make their own decisions, but believe me the risk this slag poses is MASSIVE.

I'm not going to go through it all again so I'll leave it here, what others do or think is up to them, I'll continue with the way I see things.

As I have also posted before, it is everyone's individual choice which I also fully support. From a scientific cross infection standpoint, I was merely disputing the word 'massive'.

[daviemac]

As I have also posted before, it is everyone's individual choice which I also fully support. From a scientific cross infection standpoint, I was merely disputing the word 'massive'.

If you knew what I know about the escort in this thread you would agree the risk is MASSIVE. No skin off my nose though each to their own.

[Doc Holliday]

..the point your all missing, is that if some poor fucker has a condom break, then that persons risk exposure has dramatically changed

Once again I would dispute the word dramatic. Condom breakages are not common (we have had threads on its incidence rate) and even if it does happen it does not statistically 'dramatically' increase the risk. The risks from a broken condom are actually greater for the girl (including pregnancy in some cases)

I am not advocating you should ignore the risks just that you keep them in perspective.

[Doc Holliday]

If you knew what I know about the escort in this thread you would agree the risk is MASSIVE. No skin off my nose though each to their own.

Fair comment Davie 

I was talking more in general terms

[LLPunting]

An SP who openly offers bareback to strangers, selectively or indiscriminately, as reported by a number of different individuals, is clearly more likely to be barebacking multiple people than one who doesn't suggest bareback to her clients.  You can argue individual cases of "oh she only works part-time and shags like a bunny privately" or "she only works part-time and is otherwise celibate" or "she's so ugly she has to offer BB" or "she's so fit I'd BB her as an exception", but all other considerations being equal, two equally promiscuous SPs with differing approaches to their selection of bareback partners present different risk profiles (you can fantasize as much as you like about how discerning or indiscrete her private life BB partner(s) are).
Just because Benj considers all SPs to be infected does not make it certain, just because he assumes every SP barebacks with some clients doesn't make it true, just because he assumes that every punter lies about not barebacking SPs ever doesn't make that true, he is simply assuming his risk landscape to operate in.  Despite these assumptions he still kisses SPs and engages in RO and OWO and does so with SPs he recognises to be drug users.

Others who do not engage in kissing, OWO or RO with the same SPs as him are taking less absolute risk than he is. 
Those who choose not to see SPs who are known BBers (advertised or not) are taking less absolute risk than those punters who do see them and engage in any unsafe contact.  Helping punters, of all persuasions, make informed decisions is what this site is about so outing this particular SP is absolutely in the interests of UKP.

[Benjboy87]

An SP who openly offers bareback to strangers, selectively or indiscriminately, as reported by a number of different individuals, is clearly more likely to be barebacking multiple people than one who doesn't suggest bareback to her clients.  You can argue individual cases of "oh she only works part-time and shags like a bunny privately" or "she only works part-time and is otherwise celibate" or "she's so ugly she has to offer BB" or "she's so fit I'd BB her as an exception", but all other considerations being equal, two equally promiscuous SPs with differing approaches to their selection of bareback partners present different risk profiles (you can fantasize as much as you like about how discerning or indiscrete her private life BB partner(s) are).
Just because Benj considers all SPs to be infected does not make it certain, just because he assumes every SP barebacks with some clients doesn't make it true, just because he assumes that every punter lies about not barebacking SPs ever doesn't make that true, he is simply assuming his risk landscape to operate in.  Despite these assumptions he still kisses SPs and engages in RO and OWO and does so with SPs he recognises to be drug users.

Others who do not engage in kissing, OWO or RO with the same SPs as him are taking less absolute risk than he is. 
Those who choose not to see SPs who are known BBers (advertised or not) are taking less absolute risk than those punters who do see them and engage in any unsafe contact.  Helping punters, of all persuasions, make informed decisions is what this site is about so outing this particular SP is absolutely in the interests of UKP.

I get what your saying.

Seeing an escort who openly does bareback is a different thing entirely.

The OP was talking about a girl who does NOT openly offer bareback.

Hence me saying that if you see someone else that doesnt offer bareback makes that person no safer then the girl mentioned by the OP.

[LLPunting]

I get what your saying.

Seeing an escort who openly does bareback is a different thing entirely.

The OP was talking about a girl who does NOT openly offer bareback.

Hence me saying that if you see someone else that doesnt offer bareback makes that person no safer then the girl mentioned by the OP.

Read my post again, and the thread, the SP offered BB during the booking and is known to have done it with other clients, i.e. she is open to BB.  She is arguably more prone to offering BB than an SP who only does it UTT with "special" clients or (some) regulars, neither of whom report this on here for fear of losing privileges, unless they're outing having lost said privileges.

[Benjboy87]

Yes which is the 1st time I read that she is a known barebacker.

[Beamer]

Yes which is the 1st time I read that she is a known barebacker.

It was mentioned many times before.

[Bigowl]

This lady is back and now known as pink rose.

I'm not sure if I named my reasons here for not naming her at the time. They are in her recent review

[Blackpool Rock]

This lady is back and now known as pink rose.

I'm not sure if I named my reasons here for not naming her at the time. They are in her recent review

This one then 
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=317674.msg3333366#msg3333366

[MMab69]

He wont review or name her because
A/ he enjoyed it
B/ he wants another go so doesn't want to upset her by naming her
C/  this is a posturing post, a look how lucky/good looking/sexy/hot etc I was I got a special service
D/ he doesn't give a shit about any of you lot or any other girl he or her other clients might see

AND HE'S A FUCKWIT 

+10

[Blackpool Rock]

This lady is back and now known as pink rose.

I'm not sure if I named my reasons here for not naming her at the time. They are in her recent review

Just read "The recent review" which was a positive, exactly what parts of that review are the reasons for not naming her 
I'm not seeing anything that stands out as saying not to book her etc 

[cotton]

Just read "The recent review" which was a positive, exactly what parts of that review are the reasons for not naming her 
I'm not seeing anything that stands out as saying not to book her etc 

Going by what Bigowl says in the review thread the story seems to be that Bigowl saw Pinkrose or Peachyfat as she was then known and came bareback once in her mouth and twice in her pussy , and as he was leaving another punter was entering the place and as Bigowl says this next punter "sucked his jizz out of her straight after my meeting" and apparently the reason why Bigowl didnt want to name her was because he "didn't want to ruin that guys head" and apparently " someone reviewed her on AW about 2 hours after" Bigowl left and Bigowl "wanted to do the right thing and tell him privately before he read it on a public forum." which he apparently did do as according to Bigowl the next punter contacted him on here and confirmed it.
Which raises the question unless Bigowl specified the exact date and time he barebacked her his consideration for how the next punter would feel is nonsense because no other punter would be aware that they saw her after him. So woudnt the whole issue be best handled by simply naming the hooker , why would Bigowl want to tell the other punter that he was getting sloppy seconds , thats just rubbing salt in the wound , theres alot to be said for the least you know what these girls get up to the better.
Anyway presumably Bigowl would be better of thinking about the guy that was filling her up 15 minutes before he got there and why exactly her pussy was so creamy when HE was eating her out rather than handwringing about the next punter.
It dosnt make sense at all.

[Strawberry]

We all know many girls bareback on the sly.

My point is that naming that girl in question means nothing as chances are you'll see a different girl but the risk is almost certainly the same.

In this game, assume every girl barebacks.

So on that basis, the risk is no different.

That assumption to many means MORE reason to always use a condom for intercourse.

Sounds like in your case it's justification for your own risk taking.

Some punters/clients tell me I am the only person they have sex with, I still treat everyone the same.