Author Topic: bareback (Read 15714 times)

River · « **Reply #15 on:** 13 November 2010, 04:11:47 pm »

Quote from: EmilyJones on 13 November 2010, 11:07:42 am

By saying "wife, mistress or girlfriend" I was kind of implying non-monogamy outside of paid sexual contact. The only time I've had unprotected sex was while in a monogamous long-term (well, a year!) relationship and even that was long before I started working; I would never do so now. I also think it's strange to say bareback outside of paid sex has no connection with bareback within paid sex - it's not like a client who does bareback is very likely to only do it in one or other situation, is it? What about drunken random shags? Casual sex sites?

I meant that judging other people as "wrong in the head" or whatever doesn't keep us safer. Of course I feel it would be wrong for me to have any unprotected sex at all at the moment, but you have to base your risk assessments on the fact that other people will do it with somebody, most likely, and get on with your own business sensibly.

This is an area where work impacts on relationships.
I have a long term {years} partner.
They never engage in any sexual activity with other people,ever.
{I would be totally fine if they did}
Because of my job, I would not ever have unprotected sex with them.

Funny that society perceives escorts, generally, as high STI risk
yet generally do not perceive drunken unprotected shags in the same way {or worse} .

River · « **Reply #16 on:** 13 November 2010, 04:30:25 pm »

Quote from: amy on 13 November 2010, 01:53:43 pm

Speaking for myself, I assume all clients do bareback with somebody, whether it's other prossies, one night stands or the missus and decide on my services accordingly. I suspect that we're the lowest risk group of the lot.

All we can do is take responsibility for our own sexual health, calculate the risks we are prepared to take (or not) including filtering which clients we are prepared to see and act appropriately.

Yep, totally.
Clients sometimes ask if I'm clean.
I say that I shower after every client.
But that smelling nice is no indicator of sexual health.

I then say something which I hope my clients find empowering.
"I an an escort
I have sex with multiple partners. {with undisclosed sexual history's}
You should assume responsibility for your own sexual health and act accordingly"

The clients faces show that they are then thinking about their own sexual health,
from a different angle, one where they watch out for themselves
rather than assume others will do that for them.

The same ethos is one which also works if you
switch escort and client around.

"You are a client.
You may have had sex with multiple partners. {with undisclosed sexual history's}
I will assume responsibility for my own sexual health and act accordingly"

Jem · « **Reply #17 on:** 14 November 2010, 02:10:08 pm »

Oh why am I not suprised at what has happened with this thread? Cherrylips is quite entitled to her views on this, and I must say I strongly agree with hers, and Jodie's views on this. Why should she not be able to post that she refuses to see guys who have seen BB girls? I'm not on AW but if I was I would do the same.

Quote from: EmilyJones on November 13, 2010, 04:45:52 AM
What about punters who do bareback with their wives, girlfriends or mistresses? What about clients who get "just this once" bareback from their favourite otherwise-safe prossie in exchange for being a loyal customer?

Even if our clients have a few girlfriends who they engage in BB with, the risks are nowhere near an escort who sees a vast amount of men unprotected (and men who are seeing a vast number of WG's) - probably those offering BB.

Quote from: amy on August 24, 2010, 01:51:46 AM
I'm more interested in who you suggest we appoint to decide and police what adult women can and cannot do with their bodies, and what (legal) services we should be permitted (or not) to offer? Why stop at bareback? Plenty of people disapprove of hardsports/scat, BDSM and even OWO - shall we ban them as well?

It is up to the individual to decide what legal services he or she wants to offer or avail her/himself of, and to glibly state that because someone is prepared to provide or perform acts that we personally disapprove of must automatically be 'desperate' or 'exploited' is not only patronising, but disingenuous in the extreme.

People can offer whatever they like, provided they are within the law. There are enough folk out there who think we and our clients are all filthy scum - we don't need to start looking down our noses at each other too. And for the purposes of clarity, 1322 out of a total of 14221 female escorts [on AW at the time] currently advertising is slightly under nine and a half percent, which even without allowing for the sizeable chunk of those which will be fake, still means that over ninety percent of advertisers not offering it. Personally, I worry far more about the people who insist that they would never do such a thing, and then offer it anyway ( 'oh, it's just with a couple of regulars I've known for ages' seems to be a common one - the mind boggles).

Speaking for myself, I assume all clients do bareback with somebody, whether it's other prossies, one night stands or the missus and decide on my services accordingly. I suspect that we're the lowest risk group of the lot.

After several tries, I still haven't had any sort of answer to the first question. I don't do bareback or even OWO but from a hypothetical point of view, if I decided I was going to offer unprotected everything in every orifice for 50p, nobody, but NOBODY is going to tell me I can't. Who gets to decide for us what we are allowed to do with our own bodies and for what reason? Do we ban all unprotected sex between people who are not in a monogamous relationship, or just that where money has changed hands? How would this be enforced?

Amy in response to your very valid question -in my view it is not for anyone to appoint anyone to tell us what we can/cant do - though we all are entitled to our points of view, which surely we can voice here! I dont offer hardsports/BDSM, but clients of mine who may go for that, arent going to be contracting HIV as readily than those having BB. I offer OWO (and having just submitted a huge paper on HIV infection in the UK, think I at least understand the risks on that), and they are ridiculously tiny as compared to BB (whether anal or vaginal).

We are all entitled to our views surely? By having moderators jump on you for stating anything that is not 100% PC, which it will never be with such complex issues, and then backing each other up when people defend their views sort of defeats the whole object of speaking out on here? I have utmost respect for this forum and the mods, who really offer such a good service to WG's - especially the newbies, but having been a member here for a short while, however having read the forum for quite a while, I do find that I actually am quite afraid to post what I really feel as it seems (in my opinion) that this is a very strictly moderated forum (has its positives) but the negatives include that you just may not get members who want to discuss controversial topics without the fear of being chastised.

EmilyJones · « **Reply #18 on:** 14 November 2010, 02:26:58 pm »

Quote from: Jem on 14 November 2010, 02:10:08 pm

Oh why am I not suprised at what has happened with this thread? Cherrylips is quite entitled to her views on this, and I must say I strongly agree with hers, and Jodie's views on this. Why should she not be able to post that she refuses to see guys who have seen BB girls? I'm not on AW but if I was I would do the same.

I think the core "argument" here is really not one at all; no one (and I think Amy specifically made this point?) is saying that anyone can't say "I won't see guys who've seen girls who offer BB on AW". Of course nobody should have to see those guys. I bloody well wouldn't - although, actually, I've had one or two of my clients guiltily admit they'd been scammed by one of those ?59 per hour girls in the past, so it's not like there's a "type" you can effectively screen against.

All we're saying is that this method of getting angry at AW profiles is not going to mean you never see any clients who have had unprotected sex (whether with a "high risk group" or otherwise). Therefore, we're all really agreeing that we need to take our own personal health extremely seriously.

That's all. You can choose to be extremely angry with the women behind the bareback profiles on AW if you like; I just think that's a bit of a waste of energy, especially since it wouldn't be offered if it didn't get bought. By men who probably *don't* request feedback for that particular appointment, AKA any one of our most decent and adorable-seeming regulars, potentially.

People are welcome to argue here on this thread but neither Amy nor I will ever disagree that you can't run your business however you please, so you unfortunately might not find that much to argue about at the end of the day. But do feel free to dispute whatever you like; it's your forum.

Jem · « **Reply #19 on:** 14 November 2010, 02:37:54 pm »

I couldn't agree with you more Emily, I certainly would not feel anger towards any WG, no matter what she decided to do with her body (its her business after all), looking at Cherrylips' comment, she is not saying that she is angry with WG's who offer BB, just that she wont go with them, - and if she has read 'gross' feedback, well thats her opinion, she is entitled to it, and most likely it was 'gross'.

Quote from: Cherrylips on 12 November 2010, 11:16:23 pm

I've refused quite a few punters on AW if they have been with a girl who does bb. It says it on my profile but they still ask. No matter how much I need the money I will never go with a punter who has been with the bb girls in my area (or any area of course). I've read some of the feedback on the bareback girls in my area and its gross!!!

I dont think anyone was disagreeing or trying to tell others how to run their own businesses - merely sharing how and why we runs ours the way we do.

Ah now for a cup of chamomile tea everyone?

amy · « **Reply #20 on:** 14 November 2010, 02:45:44 pm »

Quote from: EmilyJones on 14 November 2010, 02:26:58 pm

I think the core "argument" here is really not one at all; no one (and I think Amy specifically made this point?) is saying that anyone can't say "I won't see guys who've seen girls who offer BB on AW". Of course nobody should have to see those guys. I bloody well wouldn't - although, actually, I've had one or two of my clients guiltily admit they'd been scammed by one of those ?59 per hour girls in the past, so it's not like there's a "type" you can effectively screen against.

Indeed I did, and I can't see where the statements:

Quote from: amy on 13 November 2010, 01:53:43 pm

Cherrylips, you and everybody else of course have the right to turn away or accept any client for whatever reason you choose, and your motives for doing so are nobody's business but your own. Some ladies will not see men purely because of their age or ethnic origin and no matter how hateful and ignorant I find that type 0f prejudice I also accept that it is not for me to tell people how they should conduct their business, and I'm sure that's what Emily meant.

or

Quote from: amy on 13 November 2010, 01:53:43 pm

All we can do is take responsibility for our own sexual health, calculate the risks we are prepared to take (or not) including filtering which clients we are prepared to see and act appropriately.

...could be interpreted in any way to mean that ladies should see people they don't want to, and for the record, I loathe and despise political correctness in any form. Also for the record, I was posting as a member and my status as moderator is completely irrelevant to every part of that post, except where I requested Cherrylips not post made-up figures to make a point. Being a moderator does not remove our right to join in and have an opinion, I'm afraid and if folk have a chip on their shoulder about us expressing our views then that's tough - the forum is for everyone and that includes us too.

Once again, no-one has said anybody should see anyone they don't want to whether it's because of someone else they have seen, because they write crap emails or for any other reason. What I (and Emily) have been trying to point out is that the belief you are not seeing people who have unprotected sex just because you actively avoid the upfront Adultwork bareback mob is futile at best. I would rather have protected oral, vaginal and anal sex with fifty of these punters than unprotected sex of any kind with one that I knew nothing about. No contest.

Quote from: Jem on 14 November 2010, 02:37:54 pm

I dont think anyone was disagreeing or trying to tell others how to run their own businesses - merely sharing how and why we runs ours the way we do.

Ah now for a cup of chamomile tea everyone?

Peppermint for me please

.

Jem · « **Reply #21 on:** 14 November 2010, 02:56:56 pm »

The kettle is on, now back to my studies x

This forum is so distracting.

River · « **Reply #22 on:** 15 November 2010, 01:11:40 am »

Just to totally do my head in
{and very on topic}
I just got this text from a regular client who I always have a great time with:

i wanted to lick u up and down alnite
and i wanted to feel ur wet ass
without no condom
i want to cum in ur wet ass and fill it up and not let a single drip out.
I want to fill ur wet hot ass to the max untill its full of hot cum
and then u can spread ur ass
and let it drip inur mouth allnite

his spelling

I actually spent the night curled up on a sofa
with my girlfriend, watching Iron man 2 on HD
{Not my sort of film, I fell asleep half way through}

Not before making a mental note not to see this client again.
Pity,
hey ho.

Candy · « **Reply #23 on:** 15 November 2010, 04:02:34 pm »

Well, I know that there is some kind of fetish - having sex with somebody who is infected with hiv kicks the men and they even were looking through the internet adverts and wanted to pay lots of many for the risk of getting aids.

Having unprotected sex from time to time it's okay. When I saw some add of pretty young girls in Holland for bareback for the same price as normal or 50 euro extra, well I think she has lots of clients for this. I was not saying in my add that I do bareback and almost every week I get a few calls asking for it. She has to be busy with it and they also offer coming inside the vagina...

EmilyJones · « **Reply #24 on:** 15 November 2010, 04:04:25 pm »

Quote from: JodieTs on 15 November 2010, 01:11:40 am

Not before making a mental note not to see this client again.
Pity,
hey ho.

It's annoying when a good reg goes wrong, isn't it? $:-\$

River · « **Reply #25 on:** 15 November 2010, 05:20:36 pm »

Watch Sky one tonight at 9pm.
A documentary
"When good clients turn bad"

Sash · « **Reply #26 on:** 15 November 2010, 07:37:57 pm »

ty so much for that jodie!!!

Sash · « **Reply #27 on:** 15 November 2010, 08:01:34 pm »

just had a look and it says road wars is on tonight at 9pm on sky1 on my tv guide

Lady_Lust_XXX · « **Reply #28 on:** 15 November 2010, 08:41:39 pm »

Says Roadwars here too

EmilyJones · « **Reply #29 on:** 15 November 2010, 10:32:36 pm »

Quote from: Sash on 15 November 2010, 08:01:34 pm

just had a look and it says road wars is on tonight at 9pm on sky1 on my tv guide

I think Jodie may have been jesting.

See also the main SAAFE.info site for more Support And Advice For Escorts

Author Topic: bareback (Read 15714 times)

River

Re: bareback

River

Re: bareback

Jem

Re: bareback

EmilyJones

Re: bareback

Jem

Re: bareback

amy

Re: bareback

Jem

Re: bareback

River

Re: bareback

Candy

Re: bareback

EmilyJones

Re: bareback

River

Re: bareback

Sash

Re: bareback

Sash

Re: bareback

Lady_Lust_XXX

Re: bareback

EmilyJones

Re: bareback