Michelle Independent, London W8 + W14 - Amazing, but where the fuck was Allen?

[Sedlmayer]

I just did.

1. Michelle - and any girl you suppose I might meet in the near future.
2. This thread.

1. See reply above, no. 149

2. "This thread" what? Where's my glaring hypocrisy? All you're saying is that we all take a certain level of risk. Yes, and.......

[StevenS]

You've stated you barebacked a girl you say is a junkie. Any WG you have contact with is at risk and is therefore a risk to punters. A small risk maybe but a risk none the less.

I'm well aware that if you'd not said anything we'd have blindly carried on in blissful ignorance and do so all the time but the fact we do know, changes that. Who would knowingly go and see a WG who has been with someone who barebacked a junkie???

In saying you're seeing another UKP favourite today but refusing to name (even by PM) doesn't protect her reputation, it calls into question the reputation of a number of WGs defined by an individual punters perception of who is a current favourite of this board.

[west8]

No - these " 'open-minded' WGs. The type of ladies who provide a more 'exotic' range of services which usually involve the exchange of bodily fluids." Who are we talking about here exactly?

All and any girl who offers services which include the exchange of bodily fluids - CIM, OWO, Facials, Rimming, etc.

Any punter meeting any girl who offers the above is FAR more likely to transmit an STI - should one be present - than a punter meeting a 'vanilla' girl for covered penetrative sex.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT SAID PUNTER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE PREVIOUSLY.

[west8]

You've stated you barebacked a girl you say is a junkie. Any WG you have contact with is at risk and is therefore a risk to punters. A small risk maybe but a risk none the less.

I'm well aware that if you'd not said anything we'd have blindly carried on in blissful ignorance and do so all the time but the fact we do know, changes that. Who would knowingly go and see a WG who has been with someone who barebacked a junkie???

In saying you're seeing another UKP favourite today but refusing to name (even by PM) doesn't protect her reputation, it calls into question the reputation of a number of WGs defined by an individual punters perception of who is a current favourite of this board.

Who is the greater risk, Steven: the (alleged) druggie WG .. or me?

[JamesRockford]

Westie you really are very naughty winding everyone up like you do - YOU should have been a barrister.

Next time that I visit a WG...

"Je suis Westie"

[StevenS]

The WG of course. But I wouldn't see her now based on that report. My point is there is a known risk now you fucked her unprotected. Many others could have too. I don't know. But I do know you did.

The game is full of risks. But I can liken it to a car...... If I get into the car, I don't check the brake lines every time. You may have tampered with them, but I don't know, so I drive it.  But if you told me you'd tampered with them, I wouldn't drive it.

[Lilywhite]

Pretty sure you state on a review on 11/1/15 that you indulged in OWO with a wg a month after BB-ING a prossie... surely this is riskier that receiving a facial, especially considering STIs can take up to 3 months to show?

[west8]

Westie you really are very naughty winding everyone up like you do - YOU should have been a barrister.

Next time that I visit a WG...

"Je suis Westie"

Brilliant James!

You sound just like my father: "Why on earth do you choose to do nothing when you could have pursued a career in the law and become nothing."

[Sedlmayer]

All and any girl who offers services which include the exchange of bodily fluids - CIM, OWO, Facials, Rimming, etc.

Any punter meeting any girl who offers the above is FAR more likely to transmit an STI - should one be present - than a punter meeting a 'vanilla' girl for covered penetrative sex.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT SAID PUNTER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE PREVIOUSLY.

OK - for the record, then - I've asked you some specific questions, three times now, and you haven't answered them.

[west8]

Pretty sure you state on a review on 11/1/15 that you indulged in OWO with a wg a month after BB-ING a prossie... surely this is riskier that receiving a facial, especially considering STIs can take up to 3 months to show?

OWO > semen to orifice (mouth).
Facial > semen to orifice(s) potentially (mouth, nostrils, eyes).

Which of the above is therefore 'safer'?

[Lilywhite]

That's not what I'm saying west8. I'm saying YOU have done OWO with a wg since BB-ING. So trying to say that you think us 'exotic' girls pose more of a risk is really something that sounds very hypocritical.

[west8]

That's not what I'm saying west8. I'm saying YOU have done OWO with a wg since BB-ING. So trying to say that you think us 'exotic' girls pose more of a risk is really something that sounds very hypocritical.

I'm not saying you (or any WG) is more of a risk Lilywhite!

What I am saying is that you simply don't know if a punter who has just shot his load all over your face might have barebacked a civvy, another WG or his partner the night before!

It's about frequency of exposure to risk.

[Sedlmayer]

That's not what I'm saying west8. I'm saying YOU have done OWO with a wg since BB-ING. So trying to say that you think us 'exotic' girls pose more of a risk is really something that sounds very hypocritical.

Forget it - you're not going to get straight answers, just irrelevant stuff that boils down to "We all take risks when we punt".

The plain fact is that he has admitted unprotected sexual intercourse three times with a drug addict. Next day he goes on to post a review stating that he has seen a well-known girl on here, very shortly after the barebacking. Thereby severely damaging her reputation on here. He is now attempting to place the blame for the damage to Michelle's reputation on the rest of us.

He is trying to say the we're all the same, we all take risks, and those who are criticising him for BB'ing a drug addict 3 times are rank hypocrites. That is his whole argument, and it's bollocks, as he well knows.
Whoever first called him "Snake" got it spot on.

[StevenS]

What I am saying is that you simply don't know if a punter who has just shot his load all over your face might have barebacked a civvy, another WG or his partner the night before!

Spot on. But if you DO know, you can make an educated decision to avoid her. You're not allowing that decision to be made. That, to use a line from you earlier, is "beneath contempt"

[west8]

Forget it - you're not going to get straight answers, just irrelevant stuff that boils down to "We all take risks when we punt".

The plain fact is that he has admitted unprotected sexual intercourse three times with a drug addict. Next day he goes on to post a review stating that he has seen a well-known girl on here, very shortly after the barebacking. Thereby severely damaging her reputation on here. He is now attempting to place the blame for the damage to Michelle's reputation on the rest of us.

He is trying to say the we're all the same, we all take risks, and those who are criticising me for BB'ing a drug addict 3 times are rank hypocrites. That is his whole argument, and it's bollocks, as he well knows.
Whoever first called him "Snake" got it spot on.

If Michelle's 'reputation' has been damaged (I do not believe for a moment that it is has), said damage is due to the grossly slanderous comments by yourself, SS and puntico (among others) who have falsely claimed she is now 'tarnished' by association.

She is not - but I hope you are proud of trying your best to suggest she is an 'unsafe' WG.

Disgusting.

[west8]

Spot on. But if you DO know, you can make an educated decision to avoid her. You're not allowing that decision to be made. That, to use a line from you earlier, is "beneath contempt"

So you would like me to name and 'shame' any WG I should choose to meet from this moment on - simply to enable to usual trolls to the blacken her good name.

It's not going to happen.

Unlike a great many members on this forum, I have the utmost respect for women. My mother was a woman. My wife is a woman. My two daughters are (going to become) women.

[fredpunter]

For the sake of poor old Michelle, who is clearly distressed by this business, and who despite what west8 said earlier I expect may have a bit more of an issue with him than he imagines, can I just say that the chances of her having been infected by him are infinitesimally small, particularly if they didn't even have sex, which i firmly believe they didnt, so for anyone to suggest that they aren't going to see her on the basis of this silly thread is equally as silly. If I ever gave that impression then I take it back.

[west8]

For the sake of poor old Michelle, who is clearly distressed by this business, and who despite what west8 said earlier I expect may have a bit more of an issue with him than he imagines, can I just say that the chances of her having been infected by him are infinitesimally small, particularly if they didn't even have sex, which i firmly believe they didnt, so for anyone to suggest that they aren't going to see her on the basis of this silly thread is equally as silly. If I ever gave that impression then I take it back.

Well said Fred. Finally the voice of reason and rational, sensible contribution. I have spoken with Michelle and the poorly judged comments about her need to stop - it's simply not on.

I'm still waiting for the name of the girl who decided to SMS you though. Or do you think that naming a WG who talks about a punter behind his back to other punters buts accepts his £ should remain anonymous?

[StevenS]

So you would like me to name and 'shame' any WG I should choose to meet from this moment on - simply to enable to usual trolls to the blacken her good name.

It's not going to happen

Or do you think that naming a WG who talks about a punter behind his back to other punters buts accepts his £ should remain anonymous?

Seriously?????

[fredpunter]

Well said Fred. Finally the voice of reason and rational, sensible contribution. I have spoken with Michelle and the poorly judged comments about her need to stop - it's simply not on.

I'm still waiting for the name of the girl who decided to SMS you though. Or do you think that naming a WG who talks about a punter behind his back to other punters buts accepts his £ should remain anonymous?

For reasons I can't begin to imagine she doesn't want her name associated with this circus .... so I'm not going to say anymore unless I inadvertently give clues to her identity. Though I will add that I have since also been contacted by a second girl expressing similar sentiments.

[west8]

For reasons I can't begin to imagine she doesn't want her name associated with this circus .... so I'm not going to say anymore unless I inadvertently give clues to her identity. Though I will add that I have since also been contacted by a second girl expressing similar sentiments.

It's fine. I know which girl you referred to yesterday. It seems she likes to support both sides of this argument. Hedging her bets on future earnings from us both I guess.

[fredpunter]

It's fine. I know which girl you referred to yesterday. It seems she likes to support both sides of this argument. Hedging her bets on future earnings from us both I guess.

I will not be tempted into saying anything else to confirm or deny your assumptions 

[Sedlmayer]

Well said Fred. Finally the voice of reason and rational, sensible contribution. I have spoken with Michelle and the poorly judged comments about her need to stop - it's simply not on.

It's official - on this site at least, satire is dead. You couldn't make that comment up, could you?
I love the tone of outraged morality..... Quality

Also - "do you think that naming a WG who talks about a punter behind his back to other punters buts accepts his £ should remain anonymous?"

Snakey Boy, if you re-read that sentence you'll see it doesn't actually make sense, but I think we get what you mean. More contrived moral outrage. Prostitutes talking behind punters backs whilst still accepting their money must be one of the oldest of all human behaviours.

[west8]

I will not be tempted into saying anything else to confirm or deny your assumptions 

It's fine. We both know the WG in question needs to pay her bills just like the rest of us.

But at least a relative calm - and rational comment - has returned to the thread.

How refreshing .. but wait until the next review. I guarantee here and now it will be trashed by the usual trolls seeking to claim I'm running gunshot and 'spoiling' their favorite WGs reputations.

I may be a fluffy reviewer, but I am not a fluffy punter.

[StevenS]

So you won't say who you are about to see, but you'll review the meeting. That's fine as it'll still serve my purpose of asking who it was but the logic has be stumped.

[west8]

So you won't say who you are about to see, but you'll review the meeting. That's fine as it'll still serve my purpose of asking who it was but the logic has be stumped.

No - and nor will I be adding any new reviews until the mass hysteria of a few prolific individuals dies down.

I think it's obvious who we can all thank for that.

[Sedlmayer]

No - and nor will I be adding any new reviews until the mass hysteria of a few prolific individuals dies down.

I think it's obvious who we can all thank for that.

Indeed, perfectly obvious. You.

[west8]

Indeed, perfectly obvious. You.

No, those ignoramuses who have tried - and failed - to denigrate her reputation on this thread. Keep kidding yourself that you are not among them.

[Sedlmayer]

No, those ignoramuses who have tried - and failed - to denigrate her reputation on this thread. Keep kidding yourself that you are not among them.

This is just going round in circles now, so I'm just going to let the forum decide whether they think it was you or I who damaged her reputation.

[west8]

This is just going round in circles now, so I'm just going to let the forum decide whether they think it was you or I who damaged her reputation.

I damaged the reputation of a WG by visiting her, discussing the BB thread with her, then engaging in non-penetrative sexual contact.

I don't think so. The gross over-reaction on this thread is solely to blame. You and I both know that.

[Sedlmayer]

I damaged the reputation of a WG by visiting her, discussing the BB thread with her, then engaging in non-penetrative sexual contact.

I don't think so. The gross over-reaction on this thread is solely to blame. You and I both know that.

You're delusional, but I think this thread has run its course, and I think the forum has made its mind up.

[fredpunter]

I damaged the reputation of a WG by visiting her, discussing the BB thread with her, then engaging in non-penetrative sexual contact.

none of which was immediately apparent from your first post.

Whoever was responsible for damaging her reputation (we can all form our own opinions on that) - apparently she unexpectedly has quite a lot of availability today due to a number of cancellations - so anyone keen to see her may be in with a good chance!

I suspect she can't wait to get to Brum now.

[MancSean]

Mmmmmm.... maybe 
Maybe...I won't be taking that risk 

He couldn't get it up hence the no sex. 38 and a dick softer than blamanche 

[SamLP]

none of which was immediately apparent from your first post.

Whoever was responsible for damaging her reputation (we can all form our own opinions on that) - apparently she unexpectedly has quite a lot of availability today due to a number of cancellations - so anyone keen to see her may be in with a good chance!

I suspect she can't wait to get to Brum now.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing her although I'm busy today. Even if sex had taken place it surely would have been covered safe sex. I've read countless of times that punters should assume all WG's BB someone, a pimp or boyfriend. Can't see her reputation being tarnished although I do question her reason for seeing someone who had admitted bb'ing a crackhead. I guess she didn't expect this uproar.

[StevenS]

none of which was immediately apparent from your first post.

Whoever was responsible for damaging her reputation (we can all form our own opinions on that) - apparently she unexpectedly has quite a lot of availability today due to a number of cancellations - so anyone keen to see her may be in with a good chance!

I suspect she can't wait to get to Brum now.

Good post. The original review was far from clear about no penetrative sex. Quite the opposite. Still unclear on OWO.

It's a shame Michelle has lost business today over this. I suspect there more that will be lost. However what west8 posts have shown is she did whatever she did, with a known barebacker who is also known to post reviews. Better to have turned away £100 than to lose £'000s

[Stealthshagger]

I hope that when this slow motion car crash comes to a final stop, as few others lie strewn in its wake as possible, and only infect8 is hurt.

He's the rare sort one won't feel for, should his constant behaviour catch up with him.  Seeing his conduct here, I would be very surprised if people always manage to refrain from violence when he is there in person.  The sort of cuntiness that is not a victimless crime.  Should he ever get a grip of reality, or any measure of humility, even  for  just a second, he will feel very embarrassed and ashamed of himself. Funny how it's never him or his fault, always others.

I'm doubting every part of his previous reviews and any claims he has ever made

[west8]

none of which was immediately apparent from your first post.

Whoever was responsible for damaging her reputation (we can all form our own opinions on that) - apparently she unexpectedly has quite a lot of availability today due to a number of cancellations - so anyone keen to see her may be in with a good chance!

Not my fault certain folks decided in their mind that more occurred than I wrote about. The majority of my reviews do not discuss the specifics - the 'sex part' as I have often referred to it in my posts.

As far as 'unexpected availability / cancellations', don't make me laugh.

Either you made that up or you're Michelle's boyfriend. Regardless, a poor post and I have come to expect more from you.

[fredpunter]

Not my fault certain folks decided in their mind that more occurred than I wrote about. The majority of my reviews do not discuss the specifics - the 'sex part' as I have often referred to it in my posts.

As far as 'unexpected availability / cancellations', don't make me laugh.

Either you made that up or you're Michelle's boyfriend. Regardless, a poor post and I have come to expect more from you.

Either I made it up or I'm her boyfriend? I wish either of those was true 
I expect more from you

[west8]

Either I made it up or I'm her boyfriend? I wish either of those was true 
I expect more from you

How else would you have such access to Michelle's availability / diary? A very odd thing to post on a forum like this.

[Stealthshagger]

How else would you have such access to Michelle's availability / diary? A very odd thing to post on a forum like this.

Says the barebacking loon of the year.

[west8]

Says the barebacking loon of the year.

I'm still waiting for your review of SexyPorsha SS. Should make for a brilliant read!

[Stealthshagger]

I'm still waiting for your review of SexyPorsha SS. Should make for a brilliant read!

Snake,  bare backer, proven liar and wanker of the year.

[fredpunter]

How else would you have such access to Michelle's availability / diary? A very odd thing to post on a forum like this.

You are letting yourself down .... can you not imagine any ways I would know that? Maybe I asked her? Or maybe she just told me without me asking her? Or maybe someone else told me cos they had asked her? or maybe the people who cancelled told me?

I think I'm quitting this thread now cos unlike some I'm a prole who has to earn a living.

[west8]

Or maybe ...

You just made it up ... 

[Stealthshagger]

You just made it up ... 

Snake,  bare backer, proven liar and wanker of the year.

[west8]

Snake,  bare backer, proven liar and wanker of the year.

Thanks - I missed that the first 17 times you wrote it.

I'll add you to ignore now so in future my threads will be half as long without your trolling spam.

Enjoy talking to yourself. 

[Stealthshagger]

Thanks - I missed that the first 17 times you wrote it.

I'll add you to ignore now so in future my threads will be half as long without your trolling spam.

Enjoy talking to yourself. 

Snake,  bare backer, proven liar and wanker of the year.

[Silver Birch]

Never taken too much notice of Pest8 until now, but I think I'll have to put him on ignore because I haven't got any work done these last 2 days   

On a more serious note, West8 you MUST realise any reviews you now write will have a detrimental affect on the wg regarding booking punters reading ukp, so with each future review it will seem that you are deliberately trying to ruin her.

You have certainly placed yourself in the spotlight, which I believe is your real motive for being here, but have some consideration for how you affect others.

If you are offered BB, I do still think you should post the name of the wg here, otherwise PLEASE BE QUIET!

[west8]

On a more serious note, West8 you MUST realise any reviews you now write will have a detrimental affect on the wg regarding booking punters reading ukp, so with each future review it will seem that you are deliberately trying to ruin her.

If you are offered BB, I do still think you should post the name of the wg here, otherwise PLEASE BE QUIET!

Nonsense. I have four pending bookings - all confirmed - on Adultwork.

First thing I did this morning was message each of the girls with a link to this thread and to the Porsha thread.

I then asked them to let me know their thoughts.

I still have four confirmed bookings ...

[CatBBW]

OWO > semen to orifice (mouth).
Facial > semen to orifice(s) potentially (mouth, nostrils, eyes).

Which of the above is therefore 'safer'?

The facial is safer.

Infected mucous membranes have to directly come into contact with receptive mucous membranes to infect them. Unless your cock is actually rubbing the lady's eye socket, it's far less likely she will catch a dose...and there's no such thing as "optic gonorrhea", but there IS such thing as "oral gonorrhea".