Doesn’t seem that you and FJ get where Fishy is coming from. WGs advertising BB are likely to be targeted by punters seeking BB. The risk of an STI in that community is significantly higher. While there is a risk of catching an oral STI from a non BB’er who does OWO, the risk of catching an oral STI from a BB’er giving OWO or you going down on her is higher still.
If I were you, I’d abstain for a fortnight and then go and her a throat swab test done. If you don’t then I and many others, I suspect, would love to know who you meet so that we could avoid them. 
No, I get where he's coming from completely but I fundamentally can't take seriously anyone who takes such a zero-tolerance approach to bareback (or should I say stronger than zero-tolerance, more the idea of an outright blacklist) but is more than content to engage on OWO (in fact actively makes it a pre-requisite) when they accept that the STIs are transmitted in both.
The simple truth of the matter is that whilst the girl who says publicly that she wont do BB sex but will do OWO you have absolutely no idea what she is doing behind closed doors - whether she offers BB secretly to punters select or otherwise, what risks she is taking in her private life and so on.
You might say that an open BBer is higher risk but I simply don't agree - its simply that the higher risk is known.
So I maintain - the hypocrisy is strong.... if you accept STIs are transmitted through OWO then you're a hypocrite if you condemn those who will or have accepted covered services from a BBer... the only difference is the person accepting a covered service from a known BBer went in with their eyes open.
Topic: Cumslutwhore30 (Derby) (Read 26584 times)