removal of condom during sex

[Horizontal pleasures]

External Link/Members Only

(see red large print below)

There’s a scene in last night’s episode of Michaela Coel’s BBC drama I May Destroy You in which her character Arabella is sleeping with a man and he removes the condom without her knowing.

After a post-coital bathroom trip she tells him where the bin is. “Oh, oh... oh,” he says, naughty-schoolboy-style. “I took it off. I thought you...”

It’s episode four and Coel’s character is already midway through police proceedings after her drink was spiked and she was sexually assaulted. But it’s this two-minute scene with a different man — a colleague — that stuck with me. Covert condom removal is clearly coercive and manipulative, but it’s more common than you might think.

A recent study in Melbourne found that 32 per cent of women and 19 per cent of men had experienced stealthing, and here in London many friends report similar stories. Often it was with men they trusted — or thought they did — and for some the consequences have been traumatic. One woman I know took the morning-after pill, but unlike Coel’s character, it didn’t work: three months later she discovered she was pregnant.

My friend was unthinkably unlucky, but she won’t be alone. What was one man’s heat-of-the-moment, pleasure-seeking decision became her nightmare: the trauma of the night in question and subsequent abortion will be with her for life. Like many victims, she blamed herself for going there in the first place; for drinking too much; for not noticing he’d removed the condom.

It was only years later that she discovered the experience counted as sexual assault. Stealthing is illegal in many countries because it is regarded as non-consensual sex. In Germany in 2017 a man was convicted of rape for removing a condom without consent, and Singapore is set to become the first Asian country to make it illegal.

Last year, a man in Bournemouth became the first British person to be convicted for stealthing (he was sentenced for rape) — the victim was a sex worker. British victims’ charities are campaigning for it to be treated as rape, but there’s a long way to go.

What Coel’s drama does is at least bring some hope for victims. Not only is it the first time I’ve seen stealthing shown on screen, but the scene gets more than its two minutes of airtime as the series takes its course. Friends say seeing it has stopped them blaming themselves and helped them speak out. We must thank Coel and her producers for starting that conversation.

[David1970]

I remember years ago visiting a SP in Hong Kong, she had a sign written in English and Chinese. It said if you remove a condom during sex, it is legally rape, it then quoted the law including sub section. The sign also said she would press charges against anyone who did it.
I assuming that it had happened to her before that is why she had the sign.

[Horizontal pleasures]

External Link/Members Only

[Horizontal pleasures]

I never even came across the term STEALTHING before..

[RandomGuy99]

I've heard of it, but I've no idea why someone would want to do it.  You and your partner have made a clear decision to use a condom, so why would you think it was ok to change the decision without including your partner in the process?

I wear a condom for my protection as much as for the protection of the woman.  I'm super cautious with condoms and never cum in the bag as I'd be a little worried it might break and I want to avoid any complications.  I always stop penetration before I cum.

I'm assuming it's a power thing just like rape.

[the_exile]

Those AIDS TV campaigns in the late 80s scared me into thinking not using a condom for casual sex = unpleasant death, so easy for me to keep them on! WGs have told me of customers who have tried to sneakily remove the condom, so it definitely happens.

[MissWolf]

I didn't know that it was called that but like many escorts I've experienced this on more than one occasion, thankfully apart from once a few years ago it has been unsuccessful, I've asked more than one client to leave and refused to take a second booking of a guy who tried it, apologised and promised not to try again, one strike and you're out in my book.

I find the signs are usually there if you're tuned into it, with me its always been the guys who ask for BB once they are already naked and 10 mins into a booking, the 'we don't really need those do we?' Guys, when you explain no glove no love they give in but tend  to 'fiddle' with their cock while they are fucking and often have a preference for doggy.

I've learned to keep their hands either on me or in sight, if doggy is their preference I will put my hands behind my back and get them to hold them while we fuck so they can't take it off, if they let go my hand goes under to place a finger where I can feel the condom to ensure it stays on or is still on, or I will initiate a change of position.

It's an absolutely disgusting thing to do to someone 

[winkywanky]

Absolutely appalling, and it most certainly is rape.

Cannot believe the mentality of someone who'd do this quite frankly 

[Bonker]

It's bad mad and dangerous.

[Zeusthedoc]

absolutely fucking vile behaviour!
consent is top priority - anyone who does this deserves to go down for long fucking time!

[justalad]

Anyone who stealths deserves to go down for a spell behind bars.

Non consensual unprotected sex is rape, end of.

[webpunter]

+1
They'll then get to feel what unprotected sex feels like
On the receiving end
Plus with a rape conviction the lags, who are in for geezers stuff like armed robbery, will give em a good kicking to boot 

Anyone who stealths deserves to go down for a spell behind bars.

Non consensual unprotected sex is rape, end of.

[Simon_9000]

Anyone who stealths deserves to go down for a spell behind bars.

Non consensual unprotected sex is rape, end of.

Agree entirely. The thought that a guy would try that with one of my favourite WGs (or any for that matter), makes me feel rage inside.  Really cannot understand the mentality of even considering it.

[Home Alone]

+1
They'll then get to feel what unprotected sex feels like
On the receiving end
Plus with a rape conviction the lags, who are in for geezers stuff like armed robbery, will give em a good kicking to boot 

Yes; the abuse his Defence Counsel said he experienced in childhood will be nothing compared with what he can expect in prison.

[Vic69]

I didn't know that it was called that but like many escorts I've experienced this on more than one occasion, thankfully apart from once a few years ago it has been unsuccessful, I've asked more than one client to leave and refused to take a second booking of a guy who tried it, apologised and promised not to try again, one strike and you're out in my book.

I find the signs are usually there if you're tuned into it, with me its always been the guys who ask for BB once they are already naked and 10 mins into a booking, the 'we don't really need those do we?' Guys, when you explain no glove no love they give in but tend  to 'fiddle' with their cock while they are fucking and often have a preference for doggy.

I've learned to keep their hands either on me or in sight, if doggy is their preference I will put my hands behind my back and get them to hold them while we fuck so they can't take it off, if they let go my hand goes under to place a finger where I can feel the condom to ensure it stays on or is still on, or I will initiate a change of position.

It's an absolutely disgusting thing to do to someone 

I am always reluctant to do doggy as this nearly happened to me too, guy hadnt asked for BB,  but I just got a sense that he was fiddling about a bit too much behind me, I turned round and he kind of jumped back and looked shocked that he had been caught out, the condom was still on thankfully but I am sure that that was his intention.  You only have to read on SAAFE there are lots of girls that have experienced this or purposeful condom tearing.

[Hungarian Lover]

A question for the service providers, once someone is inside you can you not feel the difference between a covered and an uncovered cock. I only ask because a girl I was having sex with didn't seem to notice that the condom was only just on at the end of my penis and I only noticed when I pulled out because I thought it had come of completely but I was surprised that she had not noticed. She was not the sort of escort who carried out unprotected sex. Thanks.

[Ashleydowns_milf]

I didn't know that it was called that but like many escorts I've experienced this on more than one occasion, thankfully apart from once a few years ago it has been unsuccessful, I've asked more than one client to leave and refused to take a second booking of a guy who tried it, apologised and promised not to try again, one strike and you're out in my book.

I find the signs are usually there if you're tuned into it, with me its always been the guys who ask for BB once they are already naked and 10 mins into a booking, the 'we don't really need those do we?' Guys, when you explain no glove no love they give in but tend  to 'fiddle' with their cock while they are fucking and often have a preference for doggy.

I've learned to keep their hands either on me or in sight, if doggy is their preference I will put my hands behind my back and get them to hold them while we fuck so they can't take it off, if they let go my hand goes under to place a finger where I can feel the condom to ensure it stays on or is still on, or I will initiate a change of position.

It's an absolutely disgusting thing to do to someone 

Happened twice to me as well both black males hence why I don’t see black men any more. No offence intended. It just massively puts you off. Both times in doggy where it’s easy for them to either rip the end or take it off and plunge back in.
Then you have the down time of waiting for tests etc and the worry. It’’s  fighting the moment after it happens also the shock and what to say. Your in an incredibly vulnerable position if you make a fuss. You think if they can do this what else can they do.

[Fuzzyduck]

absolutely fucking vile behaviour!
consent is top priority - anyone who does this deserves to go down for long fucking time!

They are cunts.

Thanks for highlighting the issue, HP.

[vindici]

Happened twice to me as well both black males hence why I don’t see black men any more. No offence intended. It just massively puts you off. Both times in doggy where it’s easy for them to either rip the end or take it off and plunge back in.
Then you have the down time of waiting for tests etc and the worry. It’’s  fighting the moment after it happens also the shock and what to say. Your in an incredibly vulnerable position if you make a fuss. You think if they can do this what else can they do.

That is just a horrific violation 😢

I just can't fathom the mindset of punters wanting BB, and even less someone who would secretly remove the condom.

I agree with the posts above that it is a form of rape, and should be prosecuted as such. Hopefully the CPS will trend towards that.

[Hobbit]

It is appalling and bad behaviour.

What I would be interested in from a females perspective is can they not tell when they are being penetrated without a condom? Surely it must feel different? Because the first scene that HP mentioned about the girl leading the guy the bin to dispose of the condom. How could she not tell that there was no condom being used? 

[RandomGuy99]

Happened twice to me as well both black males hence why I don’t see black men any more. No offence intended. It just massively puts you off. Both times in doggy where it’s easy for them to either rip the end or take it off and plunge back in.
Then you have the down time of waiting for tests etc and the worry. It’’s  fighting the moment after it happens also the shock and what to say. Your in an incredibly vulnerable position if you make a fuss. You think if they can do this what else can they do.

I know that it's your body and your decision who you see but...

Do you feel that it's fair to not see black men just because of the actions of two individuals?

Should people not be judged on their own behaviour?

If it had been two white men that did it would you have stopped seeing white men?

I'd just like to understand your decision making process.

[Boundless]

Why on earth would anyone want to?

It's there for a reason, to protect both of you.

[The Outsider]

A question for the service providers, once someone is inside you can you not feel the difference between a covered and an uncovered cock. I only ask because a girl I was having sex with didn't seem to notice that the condom was only just on at the end of my penis and I only noticed when I pulled out because I thought it had come of completely but I was surprised that she had not noticed. She was not the sort of escort who carried out unprotected sex. Thanks.

I was once asked to stop by an escort because she said she could feel the condom was about to break.  I hadn't noticed any change, but sure enough, she was right.  Impressive nerve endings!

[winkywanky]

Happened twice to me as well both black males hence why I don’t see black men any more. No offence intended. It just massively puts you off. Both times in doggy where it’s easy for them to either rip the end or take it off and plunge back in.
Then you have the down time of waiting for tests etc and the worry. It’’s  fighting the moment after it happens also the shock and what to say. Your in an incredibly vulnerable position if you make a fuss. You think if they can do this what else can they do.

If that's your personal experience then no-one can (or should) criticise you for your choice of punter.

[Zeusthedoc]

Why on earth would anyone want to?

It's there for a reason, to protect both of you.

Clearly some people don't know, understand, or care
Fuckers!

[winkywanky]

I know that it's your body and your decision who you see but...

Do you feel that it's fair to not see black men just because of the actions of two individuals?

Should people not be judged on their own behaviour?

If it had been two white men that did it would you have stopped seeing white men?

I'd just like to understand your decision making process.

Ashley will be perfectly able to reply for herself of course, but as a fellow punter the way I see it is this: if a WG has say, 10% Black punters (that's probably on the high side) and she has this experience with two Black punters on two separate occasions, and if she hasn't had that experience with any White punter, as far as she's concerned she's at higher risk by accepting Black punters.

That doesn't mean White punters don't do it, clearly they do, and it doesn't mean all Black punters do do it, but no-one can criticise a WG's choice of punter if it's based on her own bad experience.

The unfortunate corollary of all this of course, is the frustration that punters who are good guys will feel, being denied services because of the actions of others. Simply blaming the WG for that is IMO very unfair.

[Zeusthedoc]

I don't know RandomGuy99 was blaming the SP but I understand your sentiment WW.

I've found myself of late taking longer to decide whether or not to see a WG if I haven't seen them before - the game is getting more and more expensive and I don't fancy losing £200for a shit hour (I know no-one does)

It can go both ways - I will rarely see European girls and there are WGs who will rarely (if ever) see non-white punters

[winkywanky]

Of course, it does indeed go both ways.

Sadly we lost an esteemed and valued member over this very issue, Peter Purves. He got banned because he saw it as unfair and basically racist that some WGs exercise a NBA policy. As a good punter he felt frustrated and alienated by this and argued the point strenuously, perhaps a little too strenuously.

But in terms of basic human rights, what would trump a WG's right to choose who fucks her?

[daviemac]

I know that it's your body and your decision who you see but...

Do you feel that it's fair to not see black men just because of the actions of two individuals?

Should people not be judged on their own behaviour?

If it had been two white men that did it would you have stopped seeing white men?

I'd just like to understand your decision making process.

I don't even consider seeing Romanians (among certain other nationalities) despite the fact I know they are not all bad, I just don't want to take the chance. When having sex with someone each party are entitled to decide who that should be and decline any they do not want to see.

I think I'll give judging on an individual basis a miss.

[unclepokey]

I’ve encountered experiences around broken condoms and more which to a degree nuance the issues involved here.
•   Quite simply shagging away and withdrawing to give myself a stiff hand job to orgasm to find something looking like a slug. It was a broken condom. Neither I or the WG involved were aware.
•   Taking part with a MF couple for a bit of double vaginal, me covered, her partner BB. (Mighty arousing I can tell you) Partner suddenly grunted and came and then I realised my condom had broken and he was flooding the whole of the ‘surrounds’ with his cum.
•   I’d been back to an area I’d not been able to visit for a while and booked a dear lady I’d not seen for two or three years. She welcomed me with incredible enthusiasm and I too was overjoyed to be with her again. Shortly put, I planted my uncovered member and we fucked. Some moments later I realised what had happened but the lady involved was totally dismissive. “ that’s not a problem, *, You’re a nice clean man.”
I totally agree that punters who remove their condoms in the absence of SP agreement should be de-genitored

[RandomGuy99]

Of course, it does indeed go both ways.

Sadly we lost an esteemed and valued member over this very issue, Peter Purves. He got banned because he saw it as unfair and basically racist that some WGs exercise a NBA policy. As a good punter he felt frustrated and alienated by this and argued the point strenuously, perhaps a little too strenuously.

But in terms of basic human rights, what would trump a WG's right to choose who fucks her?

I can understand her reasoning to an extent, but it doesn't guarantee the outcome she wants to achieve of only seeing "safe" punters.

Agreed she can totally choose who she wants to see as she is providing a very intimate service and she needs to feel 100% comfortable and safe with whoever she sees.

Imagine if you were black and you read that on a profile with "no offence" on it  You are bound to feel judged and offended. You don't even get a chance to prove you're a decent punter. It must be heart breaking.

Maybe give people a chance?

[daviemac]

Of course, it does indeed go both ways.

Sadly we lost an esteemed and valued member over this very issue, Peter Purves. He got banned because he saw it as unfair and basically racist that some WGs exercise a NBA policy. As a good punter he felt frustrated and alienated by this and argued the point strenuously, perhaps a little too strenuously.

But in terms of basic human rights, what would trump a WG's right to choose who fucks her?

I've just had a look back at that, it was on the 'Corona Virus: Worldview, Ethics, Morals, Altruism, Greed etc' thread and all started through this,  "Can you link to the official UK figures for this, the link you have provided is a Middle Eastern news source" in response to the link he posted about COVID and patients from BME backgrounds. I wouldn't care but Doc and Xtro posted the UK links in the following two posts, there was no need for him to even reply again let alone ignore the advice of Admin.

[Payyourwaymate]

I know that it's your body and your decision who you see but...

Do you feel that it's fair to not see black men just because of the actions of two individuals?

Should people not be judged on their own behaviour?

If it had been two white men that did it would you have stopped seeing white men?

I'd just like to understand your decision making process.

Life ain't fair you have to work around it. It's their choice, no point wondering why. Questioning their reasoning even though it may seem odd at first glance won't change their mind as they have already made their decision. If her client base is predominantly white and not black then she does not stand to lose much ££££ refusing black punters due to a few unpleasant experiences, which she may subconsciously or consciously associate to be a likely trait to be found with black punters due to the bias of her unfortunate experiences...so logically, it is viable for her to do that to create an "optimal working environment" for herself. If that makes her feel safe then she has every right to do that regardless whether it is fair or not. However, it's likely she cannot have a no white men policy as they may be a significant base of ££££ for her. Doing that is a £££££ calamity, no money will be made.

It's not complicated to understand, black punters just have to deal with it and look for a WG that does not have an NBA policy. I would rather it be explicitly stated that they have an NBA rule than to meet them, they take my money and proceed to give me pigshit value of service due to any bias they may have. I would rather not have to deal with PC culture and virtue signalling in paying to fuck WGs, would save both parties from dealing with bullshit.   

[winkywanky]

I can understand her reasoning to an extent, but it doesn't guarantee the outcome she wants to achieve of only seeing "safe" punters.

Agreed she can totally choose who she wants to see as she is providing a very intimate service and she needs to feel 100% comfortable and safe with whoever she sees.

Imagine if you were black and you read that on a profile with "no offence" on it  You are bound to feel judged and offended. You don't even get a chance to prove you're a decent punter. It must be heart breaking.

Maybe give people a chance?

Of course it doesn't there are very few definites in this world, and even fewer in punting.

But it's entirely reasonable for a WG to accept bookings based on her previous personal experiences. Like many things it's a numbers game.

As a respectful Black punter you would definitely feel excluded and judged, but then you have to understand why the girl has stated it.

[winkywanky]

I've just had a look back at that, it was on the 'Corona Virus: Worldview, Ethics, Morals, Altruism, Greed etc' thread and all started through this,  "Can you link to the official UK figures for this, the link you have provided is a Middle Eastern news source" in response to the link he posted about COVID and patients from BME backgrounds. I wouldn't care but Doc and Xtro posted the UK links in the following two posts, there was no need for him to even reply again let alone ignore the advice of Admin.

Apologies for remembering that incorrectly davie  . The conversation I was remembering from here was certainly very spirited, and I think was not long before the actual reason you mention.

[winkywanky]

If her client base is predominantly white and not black then she does not stand to lose much ££££ refusing black punters due to a few unpleasant experiences, which she may subconsciously or consciously associate to be a likely trait to be found with black punters due to the bias of her unfortunate experiences...so logically, it is viable for her to do that to create an "optimal working environment" for herself. If that makes her feel safe then she has every right to do that regardless whether it is fair or not. However, it's likely she cannot have a no white men policy as they may be a significant base of ££££ for her. Doing that is a £££££ calamity, no money will be made.

It's not complicated to understand, black punters just have to deal with it and look for a WG that does not have an NBA policy. I would rather it be explicitly stated that they have an NBA rule than to meet them, they take my money and proceed to give me pigshit value of service due to any bias they may have. I would rather not have to deal with PC culture and virtue signalling in paying to fuck WGs, would save both parties from dealing with bullshit.   

That's very true, the majority of punters that most WGs see will be White, therefore it's very unlikely that any WG would have a no-White's policy.

But if she felt there was no more likelihood of her being mistreated by a Black guy than a White guy, she wouldn't exculde anyone, would she?

The point is, does the WG really feel at more risk with one group compared with others? If she does, she'll consider blocking them and it's her prerogative to do so.

I couldn't agree more with a WG being up-front about it though, they always should be and if they're not then that's not right or defensible IMO.

[daviemac]

Apologies for remembering that incorrectly davie  . The conversation I was remembering from here was certainly very spirited, and I think was not long before the actual reason you mention.

No probs, on the COVID one he bought up something from the past when he'd put a complaint in about me but didn't get the response he wanted, I couldn't remember it (still can't) and he wouldn't explain. That may be the one you remember, I think he'd held a grudge over it ever since. In any case it was all avoidable.

[Gambitman92]

I can understand her reasoning to an extent, but it doesn't guarantee the outcome she wants to achieve of only seeing "safe" punters.

Agreed she can totally choose who she wants to see as she is providing a very intimate service and she needs to feel 100% comfortable and safe with whoever she sees.

Imagine if you were black and you read that on a profile with "no offence" on it  You are bound to feel judged and offended. You don't even get a chance to prove you're a decent punter. It must be heart breaking.

Maybe give people a chance?

I am black and I never felt judged or offended. When I first started punting last year I did see that on a couple of profiles, I was a bit confused but I understood why they did it based on their bad experiences and what the girls I've punted told me about all the sexual assaults, robberies & aggression they and their friends have experienced. All my reviews are positive, all white EE girls, some have put on their profiles "no black guys" months after I punted with them but they're still fine with seeing me and other black regulars.

Most black punters are good people but if one group is doing more bad than the other and that one group is less than 5% of a WGs base then of course you're going to not see them anymore.

It happens to different races with different girls, I've seen some girls say white, black & mixed race men only, a lot of EE girls don't see EE guys, Emilia who I reviewed doesn't see Turkish men. Some WGs like Emily doesn't see over 50s, I just saw a profile yesterday (which I will try and link) say no overweight men.

It isn't a big deal, I always mention my race when I first message a girl, most girls see black guys, I just skip the ones that don't.

[RandomGuy99]

I am black and I never felt judged or offended. When I first started punting last year I did see that on a couple of profiles, I was a bit confused but I understood why they did it based on their bad experiences and what the girls I've punted told me about all the sexual assaults, robberies & aggression they and their friends have experienced. All my reviews are positive, all white EE girls, some have put on their profiles "no black guys" months after I punted with them but they're still fine with seeing me and other black regulars.

Most black punters are good people but if one group is doing more bad than the other and that one group is less than 5% of a WGs base then of course you're going to not see them anymore.

It happens to different races with different girls, I've seen some girls say white, black & mixed race men only, a lot of EE girls don't see EE guys, Emilia who I reviewed doesn't see Turkish men. Some WGs like Emily doesn't see over 50s, I just saw a profile yesterday (which I will try and link) say no overweight men.

It isn't a big deal, I always mention my race when I first message a girl, most girls see black guys, I just skip the ones that don't.

Thank you for providing your view.

I know some girls don't see people from their home countries as they want to avoid problems with someone who might know them or their family and others don't see people from certain groups because they don't want to be booked by their partner's mates or family.

I have seen some profiles that say they don't see obese people and age limits.

[winkywanky]

I am black and I never felt judged or offended. When I first started punting last year I did see that on a couple of profiles, I was a bit confused but I understood why they did it based on their bad experiences and what the girls I've punted told me about all the sexual assaults, robberies & aggression they and their friends have experienced. All my reviews are positive, all white EE girls, some have put on their profiles "no black guys" months after I punted with them but they're still fine with seeing me and other black regulars.

Most black punters are good people but if one group is doing more bad than the other and that one group is less than 5% of a WGs base then of course you're going to not see them anymore.

It happens to different races with different girls, I've seen some girls say white, black & mixed race men only, a lot of EE girls don't see EE guys, Emilia who I reviewed doesn't see Turkish men. Some WGs like Emily doesn't see over 50s, I just saw a profile yesterday (which I will try and link) say no overweight men.

It isn't a big deal, I always mention my race when I first message a girl, most girls see black guys, I just skip the ones that don't.

I think that's the perfect attitude to have.

And totally true what you say about different WGs having different preferences, for various reasons. On the basis of the examples you quoted above, I personally would be excluded as being in one of those groups. Just move on  .

[king tarzan]

I know that it's your body and your decision who you see but...

Do you feel that it's fair to not see black men just because of the actions of two individuals?

Should people not be judged on their own behaviour?

If it had been two white men that did it would you have stopped seeing white men?

I'd just like to understand your decision making process.

spot on 

[king tarzan]

I think that's the perfect attitude to have.

And totally true what you say about different WGs having different preferences, for various reasons. On the basis of the examples you quoted above, I personally would be excluded as being in one of those groups. Just move on  .

are you Turkish or mr Blobby????

[winkywanky]

are you Turkish or mr Blobby????

Neither  .

But I shan't say any more because obviously your powers of deduction are strong KT 

[king tarzan]

Neither  .

But I shan't say any more because obviously your powers of deduction are strong KT 

I think I've guessed which one.. but i won't say no more

[winkywanky]

I think everyone here knows I'm an old(ish) fucker, but I shan't say any more either 

[Payyourwaymate]

That's very true, the majority of punters that most WGs see will be White, therefore it's very unlikely that any WG would have a no-White's policy.

But if she felt there was no more likelihood of her being mistreated by a Black guy than a White guy, she wouldn't exculde anyone, would she?

The point is, does the WG really feel at more risk with one group compared with others? If she does, she'll consider blocking them and it's her prerogative to do so.

I couldn't agree more with a WG being up-front about it though, they always should be and if they're not then that's not right or defensible IMO.

That's the thing though, WGs cannot afford to put a ban on white punters due to mistreatment or bad experiences. E.G: Ripping off condoms during sex. Most likely they will suck it up and put a more thorough screening process forward in the future. I am sure there have been plenty of WGs that have been treated badly by white punters but they can't outright ban them now can they if they make up majority of their customer base.

It's much easier to just exclude a smaller minority customer base which does not contribute as much to their bottom line of ££££ and seem like they may be more of a hassle to deal with due to past "horror stories", than to deal with the added work of being extra careful, mindful and still acting in an ethical manner towards all punters for the sake of fairness. It's easier to put up sorry no "xyz due to previous bad experiences" than to take each situation as it comes and judge accordingly. 

These WGs are not public property so they are free to choose who they want to see. It's not like we are being denied the right to free quality education in preference to a different group, it's just sex. When I first started punting and saw NBA I was like wow I can't believe this why? Now I've accepted that for what it is. People have their preferences, some based on horror stories and some based on what they want, we all have free will to an extent at the end of the day. I can't really criticise them for acting on that, regardless if their actions come from a place of ignorance or "experience".   

[MissWolf]

It is appalling and bad behaviour.

What I would be interested in from a females perspective is can they not tell when they are being penetrated without a condom? Surely it must feel different? Because the first scene that HP mentioned about the girl leading the guy the bin to dispose of the condom. How could she not tell that there was no condom being used? 

Well as I've already commented I will reply

It really depends on the fit tbh or for me it does, when the condom is shall we say roomy in either girth or more often length, or I'm not stretched much  then yes I can feel the condom more as there is more material movement.

When there is a snug fit all round then it's much more like a skin to skin feeling so the condom is less noticeable.

Haha explaining this is a minefield for trying not to offend 

[winkywanky]

That's the thing though, WGs cannot afford to put a ban on white punters due to mistreatment or bad experiences. E.G: Ripping off condoms during sex. Most likely they will suck it up and put a more thorough screening process forward in the future. I am sure there have been plenty of WGs that have been treated badly by white punters but they can't outright ban them now can they if they make up majority of their customer base.

It's much easier to just exclude a smaller minority customer base which does not contribute as much to their bottom line of ££££ and seem like they may be more of a hassle to deal with due to past "horror stories", than to deal with the added work of being extra careful, mindful and still acting in an ethical manner towards all punters for the sake of fairness. It's easier to put up sorry no "xyz due to previous bad experiences" than to take each situation as it comes and judge accordingly. 

These WGs are not public property so they are free to choose who they want to see. It's not like we are being denied the right to free quality education in preference to a different group, it's just sex. When I first started punting and saw NBA I was like wow I can't believe this why? Now I've accepted that for what it is. People have their preferences, some based on horror stories and some based on what they want, we all have free will to an extent at the end of the day. I can't really criticise them for acting on that, regardless if their actions come from a place of ignorance or "experience".

I totally get your logic about a WG not wanting to cut off the majority of her customer base. I also agree that there are plenty of White punters who are cunts. I hate them just as much as anyone, for just basically treating girls like shit  .

But if these WGs felt that White punters were just as likely to do this shit as Black punters then surely they wouldn't ban anyone? They'd either just put up with the risk or get out of the game.  If they felt that were the case, why ban Black punters when another White punter would simply take his place, and be just as likely to do it in her eyes? That doesn't make sense to me.

If it's actually a 'perception' thing on the part of the WG then that's different, prejudice can indeed be based on perception rather than cold statistics.

[Payyourwaymate]

But if these WGs felt that White punters were just as likely to do this shit as Black punters then surely they wouldn't ban anyone? They'd either just put up with the risk or get out of the game.  If they felt that were the case, why ban Black punters when another White punter would simply take his place, and be just as likely to do it in her eyes? That doesn't make sense to me.

If it's actually a 'perception' thing on the part of the WG then that's different, prejudice can indeed be based on perception rather than cold statistics.

It goes back to what I said on my previous point:

It's much easier to just exclude a smaller minority customer base which does not contribute as much to their bottom line of ££££ and seem like they may be more of a hassle to deal with due to past "horror stories", than to deal with the added work of being extra careful, mindful and still acting in an ethical manner towards all punters for the sake of fairness. It's easier to put up sorry no "xyz due to previous bad experiences" than to take each situation as it comes and judge accordingly. 

If there is a chance of an interaction producing a negative result, but you have the opportunity to completely eliminate the possibility of the interaction occurring and you would not be negatively impacted by the loss of that interaction in any significant manner, you would take the chance to eliminate the possibility that you would find yourself in that said interaction that has the chance to become negative in the first place no?

No matter how small the chance is of that interaction happening, and then for that interaction to turn out negative...most people would try to eliminate the occurrence of the interaction taking place, if there was a perception that the interaction could lead to a negative outcome.

I believe it's a mixture of both incidents and perceptions melding together to create a narrative; which leads to my previous point of It's easier to put up sorry no "xyz due to previous bad experiences" than to take each situation as it comes and judge accordingly. 

[webpunter]

+1
I pick & choose who i do business with so i don't see why hookers should be any different
Given what they do then IMO good thinking on their part
Especially if they are busy & have a full schedule
They just narrow the type of punters coming through the door
No xyz is to be found on a good number of profiles so they all can't be wrong

Same as some profiles show no indian / pakistanis
Due to excessive price negotiation & being unreliable
And does this translate into the world outside punting ?
Well the answer is yes from my experience
And not just me
Some real mates are estate agents & when selling houses they fully expect negotiation / offers etc from buyer to seller
And its not just the buyers, sellers also from the indian sub continent [ISC] are just the same
Constant moving the goalposts / negotiating on price & everything that you might possibly think of
They'll take on a property being sold but are less interested when a buyer is from the ISC
Not all the time but higher chances of excessive price negotiation etc happening, enough to notice
And when the sale falls through the sellers get pissed off & they can struggle to retain the instruction

Whether this is right or wrong isn't under discussion
To me it seems to make sound business sense to let us say be selective
In the same way a hooker chooses who she gets on her back & opens her legs to

I believe it's a mixture of both incidents and perceptions melding together to create a narrative; which leads to my previous point of It's easier to put up sorry no "xyz due to previous bad experiences" than to take each situation as it comes and judge accordingly.