bareback board

[sushi]

Why the fuck would you want to jizz into some prossie ,who has fucked hundreds of men before you? So you spunk inside her and just 20 minutes before some cunts already jizzed in her pussy. 

They want a sloshing frothing jizz filled cum bucket of disease. Poking a prossie whos pussy is already sloshing with more semen than the Royal Navy from her previous 10 punters is sick.  And any punter who wants to go down and taste it.   

[broksonic]

I suspect the real reason the Escort got a negative review from you was because she refused BB

 

[riskytimes]

pick up some local dog in a nightclub who has probably shagged a dozen men so far this year and shag her cos you drank too much ! its bareback but different cos she works in a normal job ?

or is it dirty because the WG is a prostitute ? send your answers on  a postcard to ......

I shagged a bird in a nightclub
boogie lane
London STI

[sushi]

I for one wouldn't pick up a dog in a nightclub and shag her bareback so for me the question is null and void. Shag any bird bareback prossie or civvie and you could end up with a dose or a pregnancy. Condoms are your friend!!

[punk]

pick up some local dog in a nightclub who has probably shagged a dozen men so far this year and shag her cos you drank too much ! its bareback but different cos she works in a normal job ?

or is it dirty because the WG is a prostitute ? send your answers on  a postcard to ......

I shagged a bird in a nightclub
boogie lane
London STI

Dont be cruel to animals. 

[punk]

I for one wouldn't pick up a dog in a nightclub and shag her bareback so for me the question is null and void. Shag any bird bareback prossie or civvie and you could end up with a dose or a pregnancy. Condoms are your friend!!

they are a life saver.

[Quesadilla]

No doubt going to get shot down but just playing devil's advocate.

For the record personally I would not bb a WG and only ever have bareback sex with a regular girlfriend after we've explicitly agreed to see each other exclusively. That's a personal preference as much based on avoiding unwanted pregnancy as anything else - of course I assume all WG's are using other contraception but I would not want to be the unwitting father of someone else's kid whether they turn up claiming child support or not.  Also for a wg I think bb says something about their attitude to their own health which personally puts me off.

But when you look at the evidence and the chances of catching an STI there's really not much difference between vaginal sex and OWO between a punter and a wg.

The odds of catching any STI for a bloke are slim and as we've seen on this site they are NOT prevented by wearing a condom during intercourse.

The vast majority of STI's including Chlamydia, Hep B, herpes, gonorrhea and syphilis can all be caught through OWO.  Genital warts and some others can be caught through simple skin contact so even during OW or protected sex. It's true that the risk for some like gonorrhea and chlamydia are lower through OWO but by how much is not clear. 

HIV is probably the largest concern for most punters as it's life-threatening but the odds of a punter catching HIV from unprotected sex with an infected WG are still 1 in 2,500 (0.04% chance).  There is still some debate as to whether the risk for the guy in contracting HIV from OWO is actually any lower than for vaginal intercourse.  BB anal sex is the highest risk activity for HIV for both parties. 

So given the above I don't quite see why some are so vehemently against bb sex.  Yes it is certainly higher risk than OWO for some STI's but difficult to quantify by how much - so bb is by no means in an entirely different ball park to OWO.  For some STI's a condom and OW will still not help. 

So surely the risk is a spectrum with anal bb at one end, then bb, OWO, and OW towards the lower risk end of the scale. 

Even unprotected sex with a regular "trusted / exclusive" civvy partner is not risk free - many women may have chlamydia or gonorrhea without symptoms so you may still contract an STI at home.

As has been said repeatedly the only no risk sexual activity is no sex at all.  I think stigmatising bb'ers just encourages them to go underground.  It's just a higher risk activity and better that we're all up front about it in my view - forewarned is forearmed.

I think admins policy is spot on - but I think for sure any here who engage in OWO yet go off on one about bb'ers need to take a chill pill and get back in their corner.

[riskytimes]

what a sensible and excellent response to such a post ! I was not advocating such an activity but clearly putting it in to perspective .  I started my normal youthful shagging career with picking up girls in discos , yes discos (1970's ) and thankfully  got my fair share of a good old fashioned knee trembler around the back and yes we didn't care in those days about the clap as it was a lads thing at the pub . im on orange juice ive got the clap ,  a scrape later and penicillin did the trick ! they would bragg .

Yes things have moved on and its a bit dodgy now to say the least but I would give money that if any bloke on here this weekend saw a fit bird in a pub and she gave him the green light he would be in her bareback quicker than  Hamilton got off the starting grid !! after all most of us have been shagging the same woman for years and putting up with the same old moans and groans !!!

[smiths]

what a sensible and excellent response to such a post ! I was not advocating such an activity but clearly putting it in to perspective .  I started my normal youthful shagging career with picking up girls in discos , yes discos (1970's ) and thankfully  got my fair share of a good old fashioned knee trembler around the back and yes we didn't care in those days about the clap as it was a lads thing at the pub . im on orange juice ive got the clap ,  a scrape later and penicillin did the trick ! they would bragg .

Yes things have moved on and its a bit dodgy now to say the least but I would give money that if any bloke on here this weekend saw a fit bird in a pub and she gave him the green light he would be in her bareback quicker than  Hamilton got off the starting grid !! after all most of us have been shagging the same woman for years and putting up with the same old moans and groans !!!

No I wouldn't BB some fit bird who gave me the green light, firstly I would be thinking how many other guys has she offered this to and secondly I care about my health enough so always have condoms on me so would use one if she had none, if she said BB or nothing it would be nothing, I am not that desperate.

[johnnyboy61]

No doubt going to get shot down but just playing devil's advocate...........

But when you look at the evidence and the chances of catching an STI there's really not much difference between vaginal sex and OWO between a punter and a wg.

I know that you are not talking about a specific STI and are playing devil's advocate, but the Terrance Higgins Trust have the following information on their website with regards to the big one (HIV):

"Oral sex is very low risk for HIV transmission but sometimes the virus is passed on this way. There are no exact figures on how risky it is but HIV doesn’t find it easy to enter the bloodstream through the relatively tough lining of the mouth or throat. Unprotected anal and vaginal sex lead to far more HIV infections than are caused by oral sex."

[Quesadilla]

Yes things have moved on and its a bit dodgy now to say the least but I would give money that if any bloke on here this weekend saw a fit bird in a pub and she gave him the green light he would be in her bareback quicker than  Hamilton got off the starting grid !! after all most of us have been shagging the same woman for years and putting up with the same old moans and groans !!!

No I wouldn't BB some fit bird who gave me the green light, firstly I would be thinking how many other guys has she offered this to and secondly I care about my health enough so always have condoms on me so would use one if she had none, if she said BB or nothing it would be nothing, I am not that desperate.

+1 - a civvy who meets you and volunteers BB is more risky than a WG for me.  A professional escort with a decent reputation is going to take her sexual health seriously and be regularly tested.  A random civvy who will BB any stranger is much more likely to be HIV + or have other infections. 
Frankly only a moron would bb some random civvy in that situation.

[punk]

No I wouldn't BB some fit bird who gave me the green light, firstly I would be thinking how many other guys has she offered this to and secondly I care about my health enough so always have condoms on me so would use one if she had none, if she said BB or nothing it would be nothing, I am not that desperate.

And that's if the bird will let you fuck her without a rubber.

Either way as i said to the czech bird at work, its a rubber or i'm not bothering, being a foreigner she thought i meant an eraser 

[JV547845]

I'd really rather not have an official BB board on UKP as it on the surface endorses BB.  I'm curious what kind of ear bashing barebackers get from the GUM clinic though.

[smiths]

No doubt going to get shot down but just playing devil's advocate.

For the record personally I would not bb a WG and only ever have bareback sex with a regular girlfriend after we've explicitly agreed to see each other exclusively. That's a personal preference as much based on avoiding unwanted pregnancy as anything else - of course I assume all WG's are using other contraception but I would not want to be the unwitting father of someone else's kid whether they turn up claiming child support or not.  Also for a wg I think bb says something about their attitude to their own health which personally puts me off.

But when you look at the evidence and the chances of catching an STI there's really not much difference between vaginal sex and OWO between a punter and a wg.

The odds of catching any STI for a bloke are slim and as we've seen on this site they are NOT prevented by wearing a condom during intercourse.

The vast majority of STI's including Chlamydia, Hep B, herpes, gonorrhea and syphilis can all be caught through OWO.  Genital warts and some others can be caught through simple skin contact so even during OW or protected sex. It's true that the risk for some like gonorrhea and chlamydia are lower through OWO but by how much is not clear. 

HIV is probably the largest concern for most punters as it's life-threatening but the odds of a punter catching HIV from unprotected sex with an infected WG are still 1 in 2,500 (0.04% chance).  There is still some debate as to whether the risk for the guy in contracting HIV from OWO is actually any lower than for vaginal intercourse.  BB anal sex is the highest risk activity for HIV for both parties. 

So given the above I don't quite see why some are so vehemently against bb sex.  Yes it is certainly higher risk than OWO for some STI's but difficult to quantify by how much - so bb is by no means in an entirely different ball park to OWO.  For some STI's a condom and OW will still not help. 

So surely the risk is a spectrum with anal bb at one end, then bb, OWO, and OW towards the lower risk end of the scale. 

Even unprotected sex with a regular "trusted / exclusive" civvy partner is not risk free - many women may have chlamydia or gonorrhea without symptoms so you may still contract an STI at home.

As has been said repeatedly the only no risk sexual activity is no sex at all.  I think stigmatising bb'ers just encourages them to go underground.  It's just a higher risk activity and better that we're all up front about it in my view - forewarned is forearmed.

I think admins policy is spot on - but I think for sure any here who engage in OWO yet go off on one about bb'ers need to take a chill pill and get back in their corner.

ALL punting holds a risk but that doesn't exclude posters from giving an opinion on what they find a risk they aren't prepared to take. So no getting back in any corner in my case.

I personally listen though don't follow all the advice the GUM staff tell me rather than anyone else and at the GUM they tell me BB penetration is riskier than OWO to me but I shouldn't do either as quite rightly they advise safe sex so not to punt at all.

[MancSean]

No doubt going to get shot down but just playing devil's advocate.

For the record personally I would not bb a WG and only ever have bareback sex with a regular girlfriend after we've explicitly agreed to see each other exclusively. That's a personal preference as much based on avoiding unwanted pregnancy as anything else - of course I assume all WG's are using other contraception but I would not want to be the unwitting father of someone else's kid whether they turn up claiming child support or not.  Also for a wg I think bb says something about their attitude to their own health which personally puts me off.

But when you look at the evidence and the chances of catching an STI there's really not much difference between vaginal sex and OWO between a punter and a wg.

The odds of catching any STI for a bloke are slim and as we've seen on this site they are NOT prevented by wearing a condom during intercourse.

The vast majority of STI's including Chlamydia, Hep B, herpes, gonorrhea and syphilis can all be caught through OWO.  Genital warts and some others can be caught through simple skin contact so even during OW or protected sex. It's true that the risk for some like gonorrhea and chlamydia are lower through OWO but by how much is not clear. 

HIV is probably the largest concern for most punters as it's life-threatening but the odds of a punter catching HIV from unprotected sex with an infected WG are still 1 in 2,500 (0.04% chance).  There is still some debate as to whether the risk for the guy in contracting HIV from OWO is actually any lower than for vaginal intercourse.  BB anal sex is the highest risk activity for HIV for both parties. 

So given the above I don't quite see why some are so vehemently against bb sex.  Yes it is certainly higher risk than OWO for some STI's but difficult to quantify by how much - so bb is by no means in an entirely different ball park to OWO.  For some STI's a condom and OW will still not help. 

So surely the risk is a spectrum with anal bb at one end, then bb, OWO, and OW towards the lower risk end of the scale. 

Even unprotected sex with a regular "trusted / exclusive" civvy partner is not risk free - many women may have chlamydia or gonorrhea without symptoms so you may still contract an STI at home.

As has been said repeatedly the only no risk sexual activity is no sex at all.  I think stigmatising bb'ers just encourages them to go underground.  It's just a higher risk activity and better that we're all up front about it in my view - forewarned is forearmed.

I think admins policy is spot on - but I think for sure any here who engage in OWO yet go off on one about bb'ers need to take a chill pill and get back in their corner.

The stats that you are quoting are they general or are they specific to sexual contact with prostitutes. Also they are not taking into consideration whether the wg has ever been an intreveinous drug user l.
I think just hoping that because stats show risk is not that large is being truly reckless.
If the stats are so correct how does that account for the epidemics of aids/hiv in South of the Sahara Africa where in some places 60% of wgs have hiv. And most of them have contracted it from sex not drugs or blood transfusion.?

[smiths]

No I wouldn't BB some fit bird who gave me the green light, firstly I would be thinking how many other guys has she offered this to and secondly I care about my health enough so always have condoms on me so would use one if she had none, if she said BB or nothing it would be nothing, I am not that desperate.

+1 - a civvy who meets you and volunteers BB is more risky than a WG for me.  A professional escort with a decent reputation is going to take her sexual health seriously and be regularly tested.  A random civvy who will BB any stranger is much more likely to be HIV + or have other infections. 
Frankly only a moron would bb some random civvy in that situation.

I don't agree such WGs or many get tested irrespective of reputation unless they think they have caught something personally, and I don't think many civvies or punters do either, in fact I think the number of people that do get tested regularly is small.

Its clear to me from reading threads here and elsewhere on punting forums that a lot of punters don't get tested on a regular basis, WGs on forums say they do but they would otherwise it might affect their business so I certainly don't just blindly believe them. All unprovable of course, but I concentrate on what I do know, what I get up to and with whom.

[punk]

I don't agree such WGs or many get tested irrespective of reputation unless they think they have caught something personally, and I don't think many civvies or punters do either, in fact I think the number of people that do get tested regularly is small.

Its clear to me from reading threads here and elsewhere on punting forums that a lot of punters don't get tested on a regular basis, WGs on forums say they do but they would otherwise it might affect their business so I certainly don't just blindly believe them. All unprovable of course, but I concentrate on what I do know, what I get up to and with whom.

i test every four months,cant trust the word of any one else,as i have no proof.I've heard from some WGS that they have been told to go every 6 months to a clinic by a clinic and as some have said to me that cannot be right?

[johnnyboy61]

I received this response by email to a specific question that I asked a WG when making a booking, but I know that not all WGs are being regularly tested for STIs, and the ones that are being tested are possibly in the minority. There was a specific reason why I asked if she was being tested, and of course there is no independent verification that either fact is true.
   
"Yes I do. Because I am aware of "certain girls" getting std every month or 2. Unfortunately I have to see every punter as potential barebacker so yes I do get checked regularly."

[smiths]

i test every four months,cant trust the word of any one else,as i have no proof.I've heard from some WGS that they have been told to go every 6 months to a clinic by a clinic and as some have said to me that cannot be right?

There is a lot of WG propaganda on this issue with them posting they get tested on a regular basis, it is of course to re-assure potential punters, it doesn't mean its true though of course, although I daresay some do, problem is I don't know which for certain.

I go every 3 months but if I were a WG I would be going monthly due to the number of cocks I would be sucking and fucking. Every 6 months certainly isn't often enough in my opinion.

[Jimmyredcab]

Pro$$ies who offer bareback are dirty lowlife skanks and the punters who see them are no better.

[webpunter]

I go every 3 months but if I were a WG I would be going monthly due to the number of cocks I would be sucking and fucking. Every 6 months certainly isn't often enough in my opinion.

I was having a quick scan of this thread & others - the usual early evening catch up.  Not paying full attention all i mistakenly 1st picked up on was Smiths / cocks / sucking & fucking.  I'm thinking Smiths - UKP Squadron Leader on the posts & review front.  WTF.  Never.  On 2nd read more slowly things all made sense.  TFFT 

[Quesadilla]

The stats that you are quoting are they general or are they specific to sexual contact with prostitutes. Also they are not taking into consideration whether the wg has ever been an intreveinous drug user l.
I think just hoping that because stats show risk is not that large is being truly reckless.
If the stats are so correct how does that account for the epidemics of aids/hiv in South of the Sahara Africa where in some places 60% of wgs have hiv. And most of them have contracted it from sex not drugs or blood transfusion.?

Africa is not directly comparable with the UK for various reasons.  The main one being that due to higher availability of testing and medicine here in the UK those that do have HIV are discovered and treated - and HIV treatment reduces the viral load by over 95% - in short meaning that HIV patients being treated in this country are not actually continuing to spread the disease even if they are engaging in unprotected sex.  In Africa the lack of detection and treatment means the disease spreads unhindered.

So firstly to be clear if you fuck someone who is HIV positive but undergoing treatment the risks of infection is incredibly low. Certainly not negligible but very small much lower than the general stats I quoted.

The other statistics I quoted relating to transmission of HIV are indeed general and to be clear they are purely related to your chance of catching HIV from an infected person during any bareback sexual encounter.  So firstly it makes no difference whether they are a WG or an intravenous drug user.  Secondly there is no clear view as to whether there is any less risk with unprotected oral vs unprotected vaginal sex.  Unfortunately people who have sex tend to do both so there are no real stats that isolate oral sex.  If you assume oral is lower risk that's a dangerous assumption.

The factors that could increase the likelihood of infection include inflammation / open wounds / sores.  So for example if she is menstruating or also has another STI this will certainly increase the possibility. 

Likewise for you as a punter the likelihood of catching HIV is mainly down to the state of your undercarriage.  If you have an STI or other ailment that results in inflammation or sores then of course you are much more likely to be receptive to infection.  Also it should be obvious but avoiding shaving that area on the day you punt is a good starter.  Did you also know for example that External Link/Members Only?  I happen to be circumcised so that's always good to know but not something I get blasé about.

So your chance of catching HIV from an infected individual - WG or otherwise - are very low unless you are very careless or dumb (punting after shaving and cutting your dick, or with an existing STI or other infection).

Secondly you have to compound the likelihood of catching HIV during any one encounter with the likelihood of the person having HIV in the first place.

According to research in the External Link/Members Only HIV is not widely prevalent in the population of London prostitutes - less than 1% of those not intravenously injecting drugs. 

Of course as you rightly say you have no way of knowing if a WG was formerly an IV drug user - or even that their regular civvy partner isn't an IV drug user.

But still the evidence strongly suggests that the risk of finding an infected WG is quite low - certainly I would suggest < 1 in 50 or 2%. If she happens to not be aware she is infected and therefore is not taking antiviral drugs then - unless you have open sores / wounds - the chances of you catching HIV from one sexual encounter with her are still pretty low - ie in the region of 1 in 2,500 or 0.04%.  If she knows she is infected and is being treated then the antivirals massively reduce the chance of her infecting you so the risk becomes almost astronomically small.

In my view if you want to engage in either OWO or bb sex the risk of contracting HIV is minimal as long as you take sensible precautions in terms of your choice of WG and ensuring your bits are in good nick as well. 

Otherwise we'd have a HIV epidemic here in the punting community like in Africa and we clearly do not.

[webpunter]

In my view if you want to engage in either OWO or bb sex the risk of contracting HIV is minimal as long as you take sensible precautions in terms of your choice of WG and ensuring your bits are in good nick as well. 
Otherwise we'd have a HIV epidemic here in the punting community like in Africa and we clearly do not.

From what i've read the risks are minimal with BB sex - but still there.  And the odds rapidly reduce [so chances increase] with other causal factors like open cuts in your bell end or the woman having sores / infection
Its like how many times does it take with the same civvie bird before nodders go out of the window.  Or they say put one on if you want to come inside me etc
However at the other end of the scale then unless other causal factors then with OWO the odds are massively better.  Especially for the receiver rather than giver.  As you point out though difficult to differentiate with what caused what when both OWO & BB etc

[tazz]

If HIV, herpes and all the other STD's didnt exist then fair enough. This this guy is on a death wish as he barebacked a romanian https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=60204.0

Anyone ever used these condoms for the bareback feeling External Link/Members Only

[JV547845]

In my view if you want to engage in either OWO or bb sex the risk of contracting HIV is minimal as long as you take sensible precautions in terms of your choice of WG and ensuring your bits are in good nick as well. 

You'd be booking the same WGs all the low life breeders book.  I wouldn't believe the risk is minimal in the slightest. 

[Quesadilla]

You'd be booking the same WGs all the low life breeders book.  I wouldn't believe the risk is minimal in the slightest.

And you are entitled to "believe" whatever you want. I'll stick with the facts. 

[JV547845]

HIV is a black swan event mate.  Study the odds all you like, you only have to mess up and get it once.  I'd recommend you read some breeder forums before diving into booking barebacker WGs.

[Quesadilla]

HIV is a black swan event mate.  Study the odds all you like, you only have to mess up and get it once.  I'd recommend you read some breeder forums before diving into booking barebacker WGs.

As I said, no interest in bb whatsoever.  However the risk profile for bb sex is not significantly /  higher than for OWO. 

Personally I wouldn't bother to punt without OWO but having done the research on risks I now only punt regs who's STI testing regime I trust explicitly.

Just pointing that out as I find it odd that many who do OWO revile bb'ers yet they are just different points on the same spectrum when looking at STI risk in general.  And when it comes to HIV they are no different at all.  So trying to convince yourself that by avoiding the bb'ers you are safe from HIV is wacko. 

[Clooney]

I'm aghast at this thread!

If we ever get to the stage where we are disregarding the use of condoms when punting, we are all in serious trouble.

And there is SIGNIFICANTLY greater risk of contracting HIV from unprotected vaginal/anal sex than there is with oral.

The chance of contracting it may be small, but it is there and it diminishes massively when wearing a condom.

Some of the talk on this thread is frightening. If we see the taboo of barebacking between punters and girls removed, you'd see a sharp rise in infection rates of all STIs and the sharpest would be HIV, which is pretty much unheard of amongst punters as it stands.

Crazy talk!...

[UKBB]

I have to commend Quesadilla for his input on this topic. He is absolutely correct. It is a nonsense to embrace OWO yet recoil in horror at the mention of bareback vaginal sex.

Anal, I think, is on a different scale.

But when you put bareback Oral, Vaginal and Anal on the scale - the gap between oral and vaginal is far narrower than anybody seems prepared to face up to.

It really does smack of absolute hypocrisy that OWO is regarded as 'safe' (relatively so such that it is mainstream supported) yet bareback vaginal is regarded as akin to Russian roulette. It makes no sense.

[UKBB]

I know that you are not talking about a specific STI and are playing devil's advocate, but the Terrance Higgins Trust have the following information on their website with regards to the big one (HIV):

"Oral sex is very low risk for HIV transmission but sometimes the virus is passed on this way. There are no exact figures on how risky it is but HIV doesn’t find it easy to enter the bloodstream through the relatively tough lining of the mouth or throat. Unprotected anal and vaginal sex lead to far more HIV infections than are caused by oral sex."

Spot the evidential error in this statement: can the THT say that OWO is 'very low risk' when they go on to admit that there are NO RELIABLE STATS?

[yorkshire123]

This topic has yet again turned into a STI could you couldn't you catch something discussion.
The STI issue has been covered (or not, pun intended) at length recently in various threads but that wasn't the OP's question.

I believe he wanted a neutral approach to BB'ing which I read to mean some protection for him & his bug chases (breeders?) to discuss who & where to get their sloppy seconds from.

My opinion on that hasn't changed, admin states quite clearly his stand (at this moment in time) that I have the right to express my disapproval of such activities & until such time he changes that I will continue to do so.

I haven't read all of the posts in detail but has anyone mentioned pregnancy yet? If you think catching the clap is bad try paying for an unwanted kid for the next 18 years, now that would be one expensive punt.

[johnnyboy61]

Spot the evidential error in this statement: can the THT say that OWO is 'very low risk' when they go on to admit that there are NO RELIABLE STATS?

The THT is a widely respected organisation that has been at the vanguard of HIV awareness for many years. At least quoting them gives some credence to the statement that OWO is far less riskier than BB vaginal sex. No, I don't know what they base their statement on, but they actually say that there are no exact statistics, you have substituted the word reliable to suit your argument. Of course we don't know the background of the posters on this board so we have no way of knowing whether they have a degree of expertise in this area or whether what they say is just based on hearsay and urban myth, or purely made up facts to support their own cause. That's tye nature of an anonymous board.

The THT go on to say:

"There have been no reliable reports of someone getting HIV by having oral sex performed on them. This would really only be possible if someone with HIV was giving them oral sex when their mouth was bleeding."

Can you find a similar mirroring statement concerning vaginal sex?

[Marmite]

BB sex outside of a relationship is wrong on so many different levels.

In the last couple of years I have been to Kenya, Zimbabwe, Namibia, South Africa, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines.  I could have caught everything that's available to catch.  BB sex with wg's is commonplace in all those countries.

Its a small world these days for wg's and their clients.

[Quesadilla]

I'm aghast at this thread!

If we ever get to the stage where we are disregarding the use of condoms when punting, we are all in serious trouble.

I personally am not arguing for disregarding condoms just suggesting some perspective. One way or another, there will always be those who do disregard condoms and the more we make bb a taboo the more I suspect it will encourage others to want to try it.

And there is SIGNIFICANTLY greater risk of contracting HIV from unprotected vaginal/anal sex than there is with oral.

If you have any evidence to back that up please link it - I have done a fair amount of reading and cannot find anything conclusive.  Anal sex is a different matter and there is demonstrably much higher risk - something like 18-20 times higher I believe.

The chance of contracting it may be small, but it is there and it diminishes massively when wearing a condom.

Yes, but unless you have evidence that oral sex is less risky for HIV then you should be arguing for covered everything - and trying to make OWO as much of a taboo as bb - which I don't believe you are?

Some of the talk on this thread is frightening. If we see the taboo of barebacking between punters and girls removed, you'd see a sharp rise in infection rates of all STIs and the sharpest would be HIV, which is pretty much unheard of amongst punters as it stands.

Crazy talk!...

Of course HIV is not the only risk and the likelihood of contracting other STI's is much higher than contracting HIV so anyone arguing that sex without condoms is not risky is an idiot. 

But equally anyone arguing that bb sex is the only risky activity in punting is equally an idiot.  OWO may present a statistically reduced risk for contracting *some* STIs but it absolutely does not render the risk trivial - encouraging the idea that OWO is low risk is dangerous in my view. 

For each STI you have to look not just at the transmission rates but also the rate of occurrence in the population and gonorrhea and chlamydia are far more common so even given the lower risk associated with oral vs vaginal sex you are still more many times more likely to catch one of these through OWO than you are to catch HIV from bb vaginal sex.

Transmission rate for herpes orally is 4% - that's 100 times more likely than catching HIV from unprotected vaginal sex (use of condom reduces the risk by around 30-50%). However, the incidence of herpes in the population is estimated to be around 50%!! So your risk of catching herpes from OWO is infinitely higher than HIV.  Of course Herpes is not serious and many have it asymptomatically. 

Chlamydia has a similar incidence in the population to HIV but is much more easily transmitted by oral or vaginal sex than HIV so is a much greater risk. 

Gonorrhea is around 10 times less common in the public than HIV / chlamydia but is much more easily transmitted orally than chlamydia so has a higher overall risk.

Equally as I mentioned some STI's are absolutely not prevented by condoms at all.

So it's important to understand that there are risks whatever you do - whether bb, protected sex, OWO, OW, etc etc. None of these activities are risk free.  Even a handjob is not risk free as eg genital warts can be passed from hand to genitals.

And of course some of these STI's do more damage than others - some are incurable, but some have few or no symptoms, while others are linked to different cancers so every bit as potentially dangerous as HIV.

The best we can do is make an informed decision as to what risks we are prepared to take and trying to say that bb is a totally different type of activity compared to OWO in my view is disingenuous. 

Any sex with a sex worker would be classed by any healthcare professional as a high risk activity for STI's so we're arguing nothing more than degrees. 

[Clooney]

Everyone who punts accepts a degree of risk, unless they are an idiot, but BB vaginal or anal sex is a risk not worth taking.

The danger of your assertions is that it encourages a certain type of person who can't think objectively to view condom wearing as a prevention against HIV as the big lie. Something the Catholic church has irresponsibly done, leading to a sharp increase in HIV infection in predominantly catholic Latin American countries.

I don't want to pursue this much further, because it is making me very uncomfortable thinking that there may be a number of stupid people using your rationale to justify their own irresponsible pursuit of BB, but answer a single question yes or no...

Do you believe that if BB was commonplace in punting, we would NOT see an increase in HIV infection?

[Quesadilla]

Everyone who punts accepts a degree of risk, unless they are an idiot, but BB vaginal or anal sex is a risk not worth taking.

The danger of your assertions is that it encourages a certain type of person who can't think objectively to view condom wearing as a prevention against HIV as the big lie. Something the Catholic church has irresponsibly done, leading to a sharp increase in HIV infection in predominantly catholic Latin American countries.

I don't want to pursue this much further, because it is making me very uncomfortable thinking that there may be a number of stupid people using your rationale to justify their own irresponsible pursuit of BB, but answer a single question yes or no...

Do you believe that if BB was commonplace in punting, we would NOT see an increase in HIV infection?

No, Clooney unfortunately based on the available evidence I don't see any reason to believe that claim.  And as the saying goes it doesn't matter what I believe only what I can prove. 

The evidence states that condoms can prevent HIV BUT to do so condoms MUST also be used for oral sex otherwise the risk of infection remains the same.

Many on this site - myself and yourself included I believe - engage in OWO contrary to the published research and recommendations yet remain uninfected.

When I look at why this might be the only explanation I can come up with is the stats around the transmission rates.  In short HIV is simply not that readily passed nor is it rife in the escort population.

I have seen for example research that suggests that the HIV virus cannot survive for long in saliva supporting the notion that OWO is lower risk but not a single piece of research provides any statistical reduction in risk so it's unwise to make that assumption.

So it's smart to assume at least for now that BB vaginal and oral sex have the same risk. Any other conclusion from the available evidence would be irresponsible. Now, do you agree with that?

As someone pointed out you only have to be very unlucky once. Low risk is not NO risk. HIV is serious shit.

But I have no doubt that if a punter here reported contracting HIV while only ever engaging in OWO, never bb'ing, I would expect attitudes here may change and OWO would join BB in being almost universally condemned.

If you have a better explanation based on the evidence then do please share it. I'm always open to an honest discussion and would in this instance love to be proved wrong.

Clearly though HIV is not the only STI so not the only reason to wear a condom. There are all kinds of nasties that are much more readily transmitted, many of them leading to serious long term issues ranging from infertility to cancer.

But the evidence still demonstrates that almost all of these nasties can still be transmitted orally even though the risks may be reduced significantly for some STI's.

So the facts remain that BB and OWO are both risky activities, certainly for SOME STI's OWO is less risky but not for all.

For me WGs who advertise bb are saying something about their attitude to risk which I personally don't like and yet we all know that all WG's are probably bb'ING someone in their private life - maybe multiple partners.

I am absolutely not advocating BB, I am absolutely in favour of condoms, if anything I am advocating condoms for all sexual activities not just vaginal sex. We've had a recent bout of STI's on this forum I believe and back in Jan/Feb there was another flare up and I was asked by a WG to get tested - fortunately I was all clear but that totally chaged my attitude to punting. And all of this was not in the bb community so we are talking about orally transmitted STI's.

So I am just stating that it's irresponsible to paint OWO as risk free or low risk and BB vaginal sex as a totally different class of risk. They are on a spectrum and punters have to make an educated choice.

If there are idiots who read this thread and use it to justify not using condoms then on their head be it, but I for one would rather they did it in the open with WG's who clearly state bb rather than pushing them underground.

[UKBB]

No, Clooney unfortunately based on the available evidence I don't see any reason to believe that claim.  And as the saying goes it doesn't matter what I believe only what I can prove. 

The evidence states that condoms can prevent HIV BUT to do so condoms MUST also be used for oral sex otherwise the risk of infection remains the same.

Many on this site - myself and yourself included I believe - engage in OWO contrary to the published research and recommendations yet remain uninfected.

When I look at why this might be the only explanation I can come up with is the stats around the transmission rates.  In short HIV is simply not that readily passed nor is it rife in the escort population.

I have seen for example research that suggests that the HIV virus cannot survive for long in saliva supporting the notion that OWO is lower risk but not a single piece of research provides any statistical reduction in risk so it's unwise to make that assumption.

So it's smart to assume at least for now that BB vaginal and oral sex have the same risk. Any other conclusion from the available evidence would be irresponsible. Now, do you agree with that?[\b]

As someone pointed out you only have to be very unlucky once. Low risk is not NO risk. HIV is serious shit.

But I have no doubt that if a punter here reported contracting HIV while only ever engaging in OWO, never bb'ing, I would expect attitudes here may change and OWO would join BB in being almost universally condemned.

If you have a better explanation based on the evidence then do please share it. I'm always open to an honest discussion and would in this instance love to be proved wrong.

Clearly though HIV is not the only STI so not the only reason to wear a condom. There are all kinds of nasties that are much more readily transmitted, many of them leading to serious long term issues ranging from infertility to cancer.

But the evidence still demonstrates that almost all of these nasties can still be transmitted orally even though the risks may be reduced significantly for some STI's.

So the facts remain that BB and OWO are both risky activities, certainly for SOME STI's OWO is less risky but not for all.

For me WGs who advertise bb are saying something about their attitude to risk which I personally don't like and yet we all know that all WG's are probably bb'ING someone in their private life - maybe multiple partners.

I am absolutely not advocating BB, I am absolutely in favour of condoms, if anything I am advocating condoms for all sexual activities not just vaginal sex. We've had a recent bout of STI's on this forum I believe and back in Jan/Feb there was another flare up and I was asked by a WG to get tested - fortunately I was all clear but that totally chaged my attitude to punting. And all of this was not in the bb community so we are talking about orally transmitted STI's.

So I am just stating that it's irresponsible to paint OWO as risk free or low risk and BB vaginal sex as a totally different class of risk. They are on a spectrum and punters have to make an educated choice.

If there are idiots who read this thread and use it to justify not using condoms then on their head be it, but I for one would rather they did it in the open with WG's who clearly state bb rather than pushing them underground.

Exactly the reason I take issue with the quotes from the THT. Their assumptions - they admit - don't come supported by empirical evidence - whether they are at the vanguard of HIV safety or not, their statement/policy/position on OWO being low risk is nonsense.

[punk]

From what i've read the risks are minimal with BB sex - but still there.  And the odds rapidly reduce [so chances increase] with other causal factors like open cuts in your bell end or the woman having sores / infection
Its like how many times does it take with the same civvie bird before nodders go out of the window.  Or they say put one on if you want to come inside me etc
However at the other end of the scale then unless other causal factors then with OWO the odds are massively better.  Especially for the receiver rather than giver.  As you point out though difficult to differentiate with what caused what when both OWO & BB etc

Thats all i can say that HIV is increasing in this country and with London being such a cosmopolitan city with people coming and going like the tide,as happened in the congo (HIV origins) in the early1900's,with the influx of people to construct the railway network and prossies to service the men,who in their right mind would want to take that risk?

How many do get tested on a regular bases in the non punting world? When some one becomes un well a number of times in the year, is HIV the first thing that comes into the person's or doctors mind?

But you are right there is evidence for a link with gonorrhea for example and hiv infection

External Link/Members Only

[firingblanks]

Bareback over my dead body 
For 52 years I've never used condoms in my personal life.
For much of my adult life I was in long term relationships and felt it was safe.

But I also had a period in my life where I was to a certain degree in the sex industry and still never used condoms.
Yes I had regular sex check ups and HIV screening all came back negative
Condoms are about protecting your sexual partners as much as protecting YOURSELF.
Many of the STI's can not be seen on an infected person and I was offered BB recently on my 2nd punt in Slough.
I refused it.......I will never use a WG without a condom.
She didn't do kissing but WOULD do BB?
Strange option for a WG.

[punk]

Bareback over my dead body 
For 52 years I've never used condoms in my personal life.
For much of my adult life I was in long term relationships and felt it was safe.

But I also had a period in my life where I was to a certain degree in the sex industry and still never used condoms.
Yes I had regular sex check ups and HIV screening all came back negative
Condoms are about protecting your sexual partners as much as protecting YOURSELF.
Many of the STI's can not be seen on an infected person and I was offered BB recently on my 2nd punt in Slough.
I refused it.......I will never use a WG without a condom.
She didn't do kissing but WOULD do BB?
Strange option for a WG.

May be she leaves the kissing for her boyfriend? some see it as only for their boyfriend husbands even though they take dozens of cocks a week. Dont tell me she was english/british?

[firingblanks]

May be she leaves the kissing for her boyfriend? some see it as only for their boyfriend husbands even though they take dozens of cocks a week. Dont tell me she was english/british?

Said she was Italian but I think she was Romanian. Crap punt Crap sex Crap experience, stupid inexperienced punter 
But I learn fast

[punk]

Said she was Italian but I think she was Romanian. Crap punt Crap sex Crap experience, stupid inexperienced punter 
But I learn fast

yeah some EE's think its not cheating,because they don't kiss and or its work

[shagbambi]

Quantifying the HIV risk for OWO and bareback (Summary)

Oral Sex (Receiving a blow job)                 about zero chance
Vaginal Sex for the man                             1 in 2,500
Anal Sex (Inserter)                                     1 in 161
Anal Sex (Inserter Circumcised)                 1 in 909
Anal Sex (Receiver w/ejaculation)              1 in 70
Anal Sex (Receiver w/o ejaculation)           1 in 154

The presence of other STI's will increase risk by up to 8 times.

Source of data is the chart on the page below,
External Link/Members Only

[Quesadilla]

Quantifying the HIV risk for OWO and bareback (Summary)

Oral Sex (Receiving a blow job)                 about zero chance
Vaginal Sex for the man                             1 in 2,500
Anal Sex (Inserter)                                     1 in 161
Anal Sex (Inserter Circumcised)                 1 in 909
Anal Sex (Receiver w/ejaculation)              1 in 70
Anal Sex (Receiver w/o ejaculation)           1 in 154

The presence of other STI's will increase risk by up to 8 times.

Source of data is the chart on the page below,
External Link/Members Only

Thank you for that - it's the first reliable piece of evidence I've seen that documents a low risk for OWO. Totally contradicts the non-committal take provided in all the other evidence I've seen which said it's impossible to measure. 

Very reassuring for those engaging in OWO. 

[shagbambi]

Thank you for that - it's the first reliable piece of evidence I've seen that documents a low risk for OWO. Totally contradicts the non-committal take provided in all the other evidence I've seen which said it's impossible to measure. 

Very reassuring for those engaging in OWO. 

Which is why I posted.  These are emotive issues and its good to have a factual perspective.

[pianodave]

Quantifying the HIV risk for OWO and bareback (Summary)

Oral Sex (Receiving a blow job)                 about zero chance
Vaginal Sex for the man                             1 in 2,500
Anal Sex (Inserter)                                     1 in 161
Anal Sex (Inserter Circumcised)                 1 in 909
Anal Sex (Receiver w/ejaculation)              1 in 70
Anal Sex (Receiver w/o ejaculation)           1 in 154

The presence of other STI's will increase risk by up to 8 times.

Source of data is the chart on the page below,
External Link/Members Only

These figures assume the partner has the virus already I think?

[shagbambi]

Yes. 

There are some different numbers for developing countries, I posted numbers for developed countries.

[cueball]

Another advantage to a condom is I get good vfm, I can't bloody last if it's bareback and I don't mean prossies, all the civie bareback I've had over the years, if she's new to me then I've bloody popped in no time

[smiths]

Always makes me chuckle the emotions this subject stirs up, though I understand why of course. ALL very simple to me, I listen to the advice of the GUM staff who tell me consistently that BB penetration IS riskier than OWO but that I shouldn't do either and never with WGs, then I ignore their advice and do OWO as that risk for ME is worth the reward, and get checked out by them on a  regular basis. Unless I get infected myself god forbid I cant see that changing.

I don't believe most people, WGs and punters included get checked out on a regular basis so any stats given couldn't be that accurate as it excludes most people, but obviously that's my unprovable opinion as I view anyone elses who posts on this subject. ALL punting holds a risk and a punter has to decide what risk he is prepared to take, as I always say punting really isn't for the squeamish.