As far as I see it, I'm happy OP reviews his punts, as only he can decide on his level of risk, and it allows others to decide on theirs.
But to mention a condom 3 times in his review only to later admit it was a lie, is not acceptable. He had active knowledge of a BB'er and he accepted that risk, but subsequently chose to conceal that risk from everyone else. To me this is so underhanded, and who is he really protecting? She's made her decision so out her.
I don't see it the same as concealing an unlisted service that you might get as an extra. That doesn't have the same health implication, nor is it the same as actively lying to minimise a significant health risk. Risk assessment is a key reason many of us are here. Of course we don't have all the parameters in play, but sharing what we know gives us a better idea of deciding who we're willing to meet.
Sorry TP, what timeline and presumptions are you working on?
The evolving situation as reported by OP was (the irony is not lost on me):
1) At the time of the encounter she was not advertising BB, in fact stating in her profile at the time that she didn't do it.
2) He was treated to BB supposedly off-menu. Sadly in his subsequent "confession" he hasn't said that he was offered it as a paid extra nor has he confessed to offering more for BB and she agreed. We cannot be sure of his answering this truthfully now, moreso perhaps given the hostility he has been subjected to.
3) He said he believed she was not offering BB to all comers at the time so the upshot of this is that he believed he received extra mileage off-menu.
4) He subsequently reviewed her, concealing the fact he got extra mileage aka an unlisted service. You can hope it is "healthier" than an openly advertising BBer BUT YOU ARE PRESUMING that she isn't giving this extra to everyone just as he was presuming she wasn't. You are also presuming that advertised BBers do more BB trade than a closet BBer. He have few if any reviews admitting to BBing a non-BBer but we have more than a few reviews of known BBers where the punter claims to have put a mac on. Who is lying, who is telling the truth?
The relative risk you are making your point about is based on shaky assumptions, the rest of us are faced with the same quandary.
Any SP can change her advertised services at any time, she can de-list or re-list services subsequently. We either choose to believe that they are holding to their listed offerings or we don't and estimate the risk they present as a result, the only certainty involved is that we are guessing what the risk is, choosing to see a difference for our own deluded peace of mind.
5) Since the review her profile has been changed to list BB and unprotected sex but the FAQ still says she doesn't do it
6) Since that profile update OP is the first person to admit to BBing her. He does not say how he came to know about her history of offering BB or when or whether she did openly or off-menu.
7) Only Paul90 might've seen her after OP so we have no idea how many people (ab)using UKP have seen her since OP did. We have no idea how many wouldn't have gone if they'd known she was a BBer. We have no idea how many of them BB'd her. We can be more confident that if OP had outed her in his review some BBers would've gone to see her. How many of those would've reviewed her to complain if she denied them BB? How many would've reviewed if they did BB? What would change if someone reviewed her hereafter to say she insisted on protected sex?
Want something else that might alter your risk assessment? I have not seen her and don't intend to.
Topic: Sexy Nellyy - Mitcham CR4 (Read 5707 times)
