SAAFE forum
General Category => Blather and Babble => Topic started by: Steele on 23 July 2010, 02:47:36 pm
-
I had a no show, I was bored and I was answering my emails. If my maths is wrong I'm going to cry, but I had a good laugh writing this.
Hi
I am writing to you to ask if you would consider offering the service of bareback sex for a meeting with me. I have never had unprotected sex before and I am now more than curious as to the feeling and sensations of this over protected sex. I am prepared to pay whatever you would be willing to offer this service for. I also would be prepared to provide any required health certificates. My request is 100% genuine.
Ok, as I'm sure you understand I cannot accept your word that you have never had risky sex before, and certificates are easily faked (not to mention the fact that they are out of date the day you get them because of the 3 month window period for the HIV virus). Therefore I would view this as a very high risk activity.
My ability to have sex is worth between ?200 and ?1500 a week. Let's average that out at ?650. If I provided you with bareback sex I would be ethically bound not to risk any other gentleman's health by having any kind of sexual contact with him so could not work for 3 months. Let's even that out and call it 12 weeks. That is ?7800.
There is also a risk of me contracting HIV, as I said I cannot take your word or a piece of paper against my health. If I contract HIV I will have a maximum of 20 years to live, meaning I will die by the age of 40, cutting my life expectancy in half. Obviously at that time my suffering will be over, but my fiance (who by then will be my husband) will be left without my income or my companionship.
Therefore, I would require my full ?650 per week for the next 20 years, to make up for my early retirement. This is ?676,000. After my death, I think a flat rate of compensation for my husband would be ?100,000 which he could use to buy a new place away from our memories, go on a few nice holidays or adequately drown his sorrows in expensive champagne. He would then require an income for the next 20 years I would have been working before my projected retirement age of 60. It can reasonably be expected that in the 40-60 range I might be less busy, due to my age and also due to being tired from many years in the business. We'll call that a nice ?400,000.
Naturally, I would require the full fee upfront, as I can't trust you to make the regular payments, especially after my death. Therefore, please present to me in pounds sterling cash at the start of your appointment the sum of ?1,183,800. I am aware that this is a large sum of money, but, as you said, you are willing to pay whatever I am willing to offer bareback for. This is in fact a very generous offer as I have not even charged you my usual ?100 hourly fee! I'm sure you will be in touch with your bank first thing Monday morning. I look forward to our meeting,
Krystal
-
Haha thats awesome!!! You rock Krystal :D
-
Bloody brilliant ;D
-
;D
-
That's hilarious ;D
-
That was EPIC. I am going to copy that, adapt it and put it as a template for emails!
-
Excellent. ;D
-
love it! :P :D
-
LOL, I laughed my ass off on this one.
I like where you said, "I have to have the money upfront because I cant trust you to make payments after I die"
Just thank goodness it wasn't Bill Gates or Donald Trump, because they'd have no issue coming up with LOL.
-
Bloody brilliant! ;D
If it's ok, I think I too will be copying this response for future emails
-
Krystal I think you should copyright that!! If I ever use it I will put copyright to you.
YOU GO GIRL!!! ;D
You've made me laugh more than I have in a long, long time
-
Heh thanks everyone :D it is totally stealable btw. Feel free to fuck with the maths to add your own totals :P
-
I got that email as well Krystal (and quite a few other girls in Newcastle have ive heard, hes spreading his net wide ;D)
I didnt answer and just blocked him from contacting me again. Anyway i went on AW last night and hes left me feedback only saying 'Simone was busy'
Eh???? I put a response on saying he was blocked by me for requesting Bareback sex and advising all other ladies to avoid.
There really are some scary men doing the rounds out there, cant they get their heads tattooed to warn us or something?
-
Krystal you have made what was a crappy day uber-funny :D
Thank You!
xx
-
I love it Krystal ;D
-
Brilliant. Genius :) I assume he hasn't replied? lol x Good if you put him off a bit, all this bareback stuff on AW in my area is driving me crazy!
-
On one level, ho ho ho, and I always wonder just how much people offering penetrative sex without condoms know about the risk/reward ratio, but I do go 'argh' at some of that.
So, with apologies for spoiling some of the joke...
(not to mention the fact that they are out of date the day you get them because of the 3 month window period for HIV).
The primary test used in the UK is able to give a positive diagnosis a month after actual infection, and it's this one which should be generally used. It replaces a less sensitive test which needed around six weeks between infection and testing. Both these look for antibodies to HIV.
There is another test which can detect HIV infection earlier still, about a week after infection, because it looks for the virus directly. Partly because it's more expensive, it tends to be used only in situations where it is critical to know as soon after possible infection as possible.
Outside clinics, there are mouth swab and finger prick tests. These need a longer period after infection before they give a positive result, and yes, it's up to three months. Because these also have a significant level of 'false positives' (i.e. they say someone's HIV+ when they are not) they need to have further tests done on anyone with a positive result before a diagnosis is given.
Therefore I would view this as a very high risk activity.
If he's HIV+, they'd be about 1/500 chance of catching it off him (or somewhere between 1/100 and 1/30 if you do anal, and both would be riskier if he caught HIV in the past month or otherwise has a high 'viral load' in his semen).
If I provided you with bareback sex I would be ethically bound not to risk any other gentleman's health by having any kind of sexual contact with him so could not work for 3 months.
Condoms: they're lovely! If you did catch HIV off him, your chances of passing it on via unprotected sex will be higher than the usual 1/1,666 (it's safer to be the one with the penis with sexual transmission) for the first weeks, but using condoms properly cuts that down to nil or very very nearly so.
If I contract HIV I will have a maximum of 20 years to live, meaning I will die by the age of 40, cutting my life expectancy in half.
Again, I recognise where you're coming from in writing this, but this bit makes me go 'argh' in particular. Combination therapy (taking three or more anti-HIV drugs) has absolutely transformed the life expectancy of people with HIV since the mid-90s. Quality of life will be affected - you really do not want to be HIV+ - but you should have no less of it. People who die because of Aids in the UK now typically were never tested for HIV until too late.
And your life expectancy is likely to be rather higher than 40 years, unless you've some very interesting hobbies.
Oh, if anyone else copies this idea, do make sure that weekly rate x 50 is around what you're declaring to the tax authorities and, if you're in the UK, that it falls below the VAT threshold. Otherwise, at some point, someone will forward it to (or actually be from) HMR&C and eyebrows will be raised.
-
The primary test used in the UK is able to give a positive diagnosis a month after actual infection, and it's this one which should be generally used. It replaces a less sensitive test which needed around six weeks between infection and testing. Both these look for antibodies to HIV.
There is another test which can detect HIV infection earlier still, about a week after infection, because it looks for the virus directly. Partly because it's more expensive, it tends to be used only in situations where it is critical to know as soon after possible infection as possible.
This is interesting and always good to know the facts. Does this mean that our bodies don't start producing antibodies to HIV infection straight away then xw5? I know that antibodies won't be produced and present the very minute someone is infected but with the test that detects HIV earlier and looks for the actual virus does this mean that antibodies can take over a week to be produced and this is the reason that the early test looks for the virus rather than antibodies?
-
Haha, thanks. My knowledge of HIV comes from a project I had to do at beauty college which I researched on wikipedia three years ago, so it's probably pretty patchy. I did know about the very low transmission rate - but personally I wouldn't want to have sex with anyone if I knew I was HIV+ or could be, even with condoms, just because I would feel so guilty if I passed it on. That's an ethical judgment on myself that I would never apply to anyone else, but I think that part still stands :P.
Just one thing though - the tests I get are the 3 month ones. That's what I've been told by clinic staff. Is it maybe because of the area I'm in? They also told me that Newcastle has less HIV than anywhere else in the country. I didn't know the earlier detection tests were as widely available, last I heard was that you had to get them done privately (that was when my sister got tested a few years ago).
-
I know that antibodies won't be produced and present the very minute someone is infected but with the test that detects HIV earlier and looks for the actual virus does this mean that antibodies can take over a week to be produced and this is the reason that the early test looks for the virus rather than antibodies?
I can't remember just how long it takes, but yes. There's also an element of any particular test's sensitivity.
So when a woman is pregnant, she starts to produce a hormone in increasing amounts. Pregnancy tests look for this, but some tests are more sensitive than others (they can detect smaller amounts) and so can go 'pregnant!' earlier.
-
Just one thing though - the tests I get are the 3 month ones. That's what I've been told by clinic staff. Is it maybe because of the area I'm in? They also told me that Newcastle has less HIV than anywhere else in the country. I didn't know the earlier detection tests were as widely available, last I heard was that you had to get them done privately (that was when my sister got tested a few years ago).
For the 'look for the virus directly' test, you probably would go private. For the 'use a syringe to get some blood and test that' test in general use at a clinic, it really should be the six week one they're using, but it's just possible they're just being cautious in case someone is a bit slower at producing antibodies and is told they're HIV- when they're not.
Part of me thinks that if they're not testing properly, they would think that! A presentation on the Newcastle PCT site says they started doing proper 'we'll ask everyone we see if they want it' testing in 2001. The HIV prevalence in 2005 was low average (most of Yorkshire was lower, for example).
-
Awesome, just copied that onto my Clippings extension ready to paste at the next Bareback enquiry :D
-
I had a no show, I was bored and I was answering my emails. If my maths is wrong I'm going to cry, but I had a good laugh writing this.
Hi
I am writing to you to ask if you would consider offering the service of bareback sex for a meeting with me. I have never had unprotected sex before and I am now more than curious as to the feeling and sensations of this over protected sex. I am prepared to pay whatever you would be willing to offer this service for. I also would be prepared to provide any required health certificates. My request is 100% genuine.
Ok, as I'm sure you understand I cannot accept your word that you have never had risky sex before, and certificates are easily faked (not to mention the fact that they are out of date the day you get them because of the 3 month window period for the HIV virus). Therefore I would view this as a very high risk activity.
My ability to have sex is worth between ?200 and ?1500 a week. Let's average that out at ?650. If I provided you with bareback sex I would be ethically bound not to risk any other gentleman's health by having any kind of sexual contact with him so could not work for 3 months. Let's even that out and call it 12 weeks. That is ?7800.
There is also a risk of me contracting HIV, as I said I cannot take your word or a piece of paper against my health. If I contract HIV I will have a maximum of 20 years to live, meaning I will die by the age of 40, cutting my life expectancy in half. Obviously at that time my suffering will be over, but my fiance (who by then will be my husband) will be left without my income or my companionship.
Therefore, I would require my full ?650 per week for the next 20 years, to make up for my early retirement. This is ?676,000. After my death, I think a flat rate of compensation for my husband would be ?100,000 which he could use to buy a new place away from our memories, go on a few nice holidays or adequately drown his sorrows in expensive champagne. He would then require an income for the next 20 years I would have been working before my projected retirement age of 60. It can reasonably be expected that in the 40-60 range I might be less busy, due to my age and also due to being tired from many years in the business. We'll call that a nice ?400,000.
Naturally, I would require the full fee upfront, as I can't trust you to make the regular payments, especially after my death. Therefore, please present to me in pounds sterling cash at the start of your appointment the sum of ?1,183,800. I am aware that this is a large sum of money, but, as you said, you are willing to pay whatever I am willing to offer bareback for. This is in fact a very generous offer as I have not even charged you my usual ?100 hourly fee! I'm sure you will be in touch with your bank first thing Monday morning. I look forward to our meeting,
Krystal
lol that's classic!
Honestly sometimes I am not sure how people think they can always get away with unprotected sex.
Had a Punter today who wouldn't have penetrative sex after I put a condom on him. He explained about his concern of catching something from me that cheeky bugger! ;-( of course I gave him a lecture about my regular checks and visits to the Clinic.
And really if he is that worried he shouldn't be visiting any WGS for that matter although we are considered the cleanest girls out there as opposed to the one night standers. x
-
Krystal you are brilliant.
Hope u dont mind if I use it for a clients wants bareback.
I never done it and never will do.I do not understant some girl in my area offer bareback ?60 an hour?!!!!!!!!?????
-
Don't mind at all :P
I don't understand ladies that offer it either, but I guess for some it's desperation. Low self esteem makes them think they can't get clients any other way, maybe? A lot of profiles on AW are fakes as well, they just make money from private gallery sales, so hopefully some of them don't actually do what they claim to. And, sadly, some are just really stupid. A lass I used to work with before becoming an escort was asking me how to get into it, and I think she's the kind of girl who would end up being that way if she did because she just has no common sense at all :/
-
Thanks Krystal, I just received a text making the generous offer of ?300 for bareback. I'm rubbish at maths but thanks to your thread I had a ready made estimate.
He hasn't made the booking, I just can't understand why???
-
I just realised I didn't add pregnancy into the maths. I could have claimed to be pro-life and added the cost of raising a child ;D
-
I just realised I didn't add pregnancy into the maths. I could have claimed to be pro-life and added the cost of raising a child ;D
Somehow don't think I could get away with adding that charge on :(
-
Love it!
Only found this forum today and I think it's wonderful
Thank you girls
Xxx
-
That was gold!
I really don't understand why people do bareback - WGs or clients. It just isn't worth the risk. I read an article about a uni student in Brighton who offered BB for an extra ?400. She is only probably 20ish years old and may get a terminal disease that will mean she probably won't see her 40th birthday. Sad.
-
So going to add this email to my reverse booking bidding comments. Genius.
Every reverse booking that asks for bareback and ANAL bareback for ?75, I put the money in the bidding at ?90,000 because i'm sick and tired of seeing men ask for that. Did they stare at the sun for so long to melt their brains out? There's 1 girl on AW that offers bb and she's so dumb. I read her blog and clearly she never learned at school. If i was her teacher, i wouldnt let her leave school till she learned common sense! Bb pisses me off
-
On one level, ho ho ho, and I always wonder just how much people offering penetrative sex without condoms know about the risk/reward ratio, but I do go 'argh' at some of that.
So, with apologies for spoiling some of the joke...
(not to mention the fact that they are out of date the day you get them because of the 3 month window period for HIV).
The primary test used in the UK is able to give a positive diagnosis a month after actual infection, and it's this one which should be generally used. It replaces a less sensitive test which needed around six weeks between infection and testing. Both these look for antibodies to HIV.
There is another test which can detect HIV infection earlier still, about a week after infection, because it looks for the virus directly. Partly because it's more expensive, it tends to be used only in situations where it is critical to know as soon after possible infection as possible.
Outside clinics, there are mouth swab and finger prick tests. These need a longer period after infection before they give a positive result, and yes, it's up to three months. Because these also have a significant level of 'false positives' (i.e. they say someone's HIV+ when they are not) they need to have further tests done on anyone with a positive result before a diagnosis is given.
Therefore I would view this as a very high risk activity.
If he's HIV+, they'd be about 1/500 chance of catching it off him (or somewhere between 1/100 and 1/30 if you do anal, and both would be riskier if he caught HIV in the past month or otherwise has a high 'viral load' in his semen).
If I provided you with bareback sex I would be ethically bound not to risk any other gentleman's health by having any kind of sexual contact with him so could not work for 3 months.
Condoms: they're lovely! If you did catch HIV off him, your chances of passing it on via unprotected sex will be higher than the usual 1/1,666 (it's safer to be the one with the penis with sexual transmission) for the first weeks, but using condoms properly cuts that down to nil or very very nearly so.
If I contract HIV I will have a maximum of 20 years to live, meaning I will die by the age of 40, cutting my life expectancy in half.
Again, I recognise where you're coming from in writing this, but this bit makes me go 'argh' in particular. Combination therapy (taking three or more anti-HIV drugs) has absolutely transformed the life expectancy of people with HIV since the mid-90s. Quality of life will be affected - you really do not want to be HIV+ - but you should have no less of it. People who die because of Aids in the UK now typically were never tested for HIV until too late.
And your life expectancy is likely to be rather higher than 40 years, unless you've some very interesting hobbies.
Oh, if anyone else copies this idea, do make sure that weekly rate x 50 is around what you're declaring to the tax authorities and, if you're in the UK, that it falls below the VAT threshold. Otherwise, at some point, someone will forward it to (or actually be from) HMR&C and eyebrows will be raised.
This is a lot of interesting information. Where are you sourcing it from, how can we be sure it's all true?
If it is, it looks like tthe risks of HIV are far less than the scaremongering shows.
There are plenty of people in this industry who are in desperate financial situations. ?400 is a lot of money when you have kids to feed, or rent to pay and you're under threat of eviction.
-
I wouldn't normally reply to such an old post, but it's just had a plug somewhere and I've realised I never responded at the time. So for anyone else wondering...
This is a lot of interesting information. Where are you sourcing it from, how can we be sure it's all true?
If it is, it looks like tthe risks of HIV are far less than the scaremongering shows.
There are plenty of people in this industry who are in desperate financial situations. ?400 is a lot of money when you have kids to feed, or rent to pay and you're under threat of eviction.
It's from the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV - the organisation for sexual health medical specialists. They produce the guidelines that sexual health clinics are supposed to live up to. Amongst those are http://www.bashh.org/documents/4076 (http://www.bashh.org/documents/4076) - on post-exposure prophylaxis ('PEP' - a month long course of anti HIV drugs designed to stop people who have been exposed to HIV becoming HIV+) which contains the per act risk statistics, plus references to the studies those were derived from - and ones on testing. For the effectiveness of combination therapy on reducing deaths from Aids, see the hill in the death rates: going up until 1996 and down since then.
Yes, these are lower rates than some of the scaremongering, but they're per incidence risks. If you had what the jargon calls receptive sero-discordant unprotected anal intercourse - in English, 'bareback anal with someone who is HIV+' - once a week, you'd have about an four in five chance of being HIV+ within a year. For vaginal sex, it's about a one in ten chance.
Yes, the more desperate you are, the more chance you have of being exploited.
-
An i correct in thinking that hep C is much more easily transmittable and prevalent than HIV??