Honkytonk

Alarming Rate Of Barebackers!

31 posts in this topic

I am absolutely flabbergasted about the amount of active Bb providers advertising on the purple site! It is shocking, some such young pretty girls also. What on earth would make them want to toy with there health like that. How many men are there that actively seek Bb service? Bloody insane behaviour. How can these services even be allowed to be advertised on there? I guess it is a personal choice of course but it just beggars belief ;(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you take out thoise girls who dont give their first language as english then its a lot rarer.  I think many EE girls think BB means OWO,probably confused by the fact that there is an 'unprotected sex' option.

also I think many EE profiles are written by a 3rd party and they just tick everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you take out thoise girls who dont give their first language as english then its a lot rarer.  I think many EE girls think BB means OWO,probably confused by the fact that there is an 'unprotected sex' option.

also I think many EE profiles are written by a 3rd party and they just tick everything. 

 

Interesting point about Pimps ticking everything.

I have been doing a bit of research, I set up my account to notify me of new profiles in my selected area, I have 780 listed, so far I have waded through the last 4 days worth and so far only one profile does not have a red warning notice, AW are now searching for profiles set up by pimps/box tickers, I have worked out how they are being detected and also how to get around the problem, seem the pimps are not very PC savvy hence the box ticking is good syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So mostly pimps are responsible for this. Even more reason to avoid them. No young healthy pretty girl would surely want to put their health at risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point about Pimps ticking everything.

I have been doing a bit of research, I set up my account to notify me of new profiles in my selected area, I have 780 listed, so far I have waded through the last 4 days worth and so far only one profile does not have a red warning notice, AW are now searching for profiles set up by pimps/box tickers, I have worked out how they are being detected and also how to get around the problem, seem the pimps are not very PC savvy hence the box ticking is good syndrome.

 

The red warning now goes up automatically on any new profile until a verification photo is submitted.  It doesn't really mean anything.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite true - there is a lot of it about again. A friend of mine runs an establishment in Germany, and she was commenting on the resurgence of BB requests. On the subject of its dangers, I'm reproducing an article in the Wall Street Journal. The article is from 1997, but I don't feel that is detrimental to the message.

 

Dangers real and imagined (by Ronald Bailey)

How risky is unprotected sex with strangers? One study calculated that having vaginal intercourse with 5,400 American partners would result in a lost life expectancy of 10 days. Compare this risk with a loss of a year for being 12 pounds overweight.

 

Sex equals death. The puritans of both the left and the right have loudly promoted this message since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. The left proclaims that everybody is at risk. Advancing a distorted egalitarian agenda, some decree that if everybody cannot enjoy sex safely, then nobody should. (At Antioch College one demonstrator's poster summed it up: "Social equality is more important than sexual pleasure"). Meanwhile, those on the right, who see AIDS as punishment for sexual sinners, are happy to go along because they hope it will curtail sexual dalliances outside marriage.

 

Early on, homosexual activists advanced the idea that all were at risk because they feared that if AIDS was seen as only afflicting their community, the larger society would stint on money for research. The campaign was successful. In 1995, 12 times more people died of cancer (538,455) and 17 times more of heart disease (737,563) than died of AIDS (43,115). Yet today, at the National Institute of Health, funding for AIDS research (1.5 billion dollars) is second only to cancer research (2.2 billion dollars), and exceeds the amount spent on heart disease (1.4 billion).

 

Make no mistake about it, AIDS is a horrible disease. I have met several people who have met cruel deaths from this malady. But the plain fact is that not all Americans are equally at risk. In Sex at Risk (Transaction, 232 pages) clinical psychologist Stuart Brody reviews nearly all the studies dealing with AIDS, frequency of sexual intercourse and the lifetime number of sexual partners. The good news is that "the risk of transmitting HIV through vaginal intercourse is near zero among healthy adults."

 

But what about the increasing numbers of people claiming to have been infected through heterosexual intercourse? Mr Brody explains why scepticism is in order: "Research and experience has shown us that people lie often and for many reasons, and that the content of these lies includes the intravenous drug use and anal intercourse risk factors for HIV transmission. Such lying is one of the factors contributing to an inflated estimate of vaginal HIV transmission."

 

Furthermore, many of the epidemiological surveys are badly flawed. Most ask merely whether the patient got the infection from heterosexual sex, failing to distinguish between vaginal and receptive anal intercourse. This leads to "spuriously higher rates of 'heterosexual transmission' for women. Heterosexual transmission is usually misinterpreted by most readers to mean vaginal intercourse".

 

According to Mr Brody, most scientific evidence shows that HIV is spread almost exclusively through intravenous drug use and receptive anal sexual intercourse (excluding infants infected in the womb, transfusion patients and hemophiliacs). In particular, women who are not drug users are generally infected through receptive anal sexual intercourse with bisexual men or males who inject drugs.

 

What about the recent, much publicised outbreak of heterosexual AIDS in upstate New York? The man at the center of that mini-epidemic, Nushawn Williams, was trading drugs for sex with young women who reportedly regularly engaged in "at risk" behaviours. Mr Williams had apparently been diagnosed with the sexually transmitted disease Chlamydia. Because of confidentiality laws, it is not possible to tell for sure, but it seems likely that many, if not most, of his sexual partners became infected with HIV with chlamydia acting as a strong co-factor.

 

This matters because the results from the largest study of heterosexual transmission of HIV in the US "confirm the significant contribution of both injection drug use and infection with other sexually transmitted diseases." This study also confirms that it is difficult for HIV to be transmitted via vaginal sex, even in couples where one of the partners is known to be infected. "We estimate that infectivity for male-to-female transmission is low, approximately 0.0009 per contact, and that infectivity for female-to-male transmission is even lower", concludes the study.

 

So, how risky is unprotected vaginal intercourse with strangers? One study calculated that having vaginal intercourse with 5,400 American partners would result in a lost life expectancy of 10 days. Compare this risk with a loss of six months associated with driving a car 10,000 miles per year, or a loss of a year for being 12 pounds overweight.

 

Mr Brody is not "blaming the victims" at all. He is making a strong case that we focus AIDS education on behaviours that are clearly dangerous, rather than squander resources on scaring people who are at very low risk. This is the way to save lifes. He notes that the "gross exaggeration of AIDS risk to healthy, non-IVDU heterosexuals is not only psychologically damaging, but also constitutes unethical behaviour on the part of many public health officials, journalists and others".

 

Puritans left and right will no doubt denounce Mr Brody's conclusions, but as he writes: "Truth is no enemy of compassion, and lying is not an enduring friend".

 

Be that as it may, I still like my clients to wear a condom. Not because I'm particularly worried about contracting HIV, but because I don't fancy getting gonorrhea and all the other stuff that's out there. I expect my "boys" don't particularly want to potentially infect their wives, either. However, I'm certainly not neurotic about it, I have no worries about offering OWO, I don't offer anal intercourse (covered or otherwise), and I go to the clinic regularly for throat swabs. Beyond that, I really can't drive myself nuts with worry, or I'd have to retire.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If younger then they will not have been around for the HIV/AIDs epidemic that took the world by surprise and caused us to reevaluate how careful we are regarding BB sex. Those from mid 30's upwards remember the campaigns and the awareness stuff, the younger lot dont. All they see are the breakthroughs and how its now managable and hear how its now not a death sentence. We were scared out of our noddys over it. 

 

I think being of an age of awareness during those times also made people more aware of other STI's and of course the HIV issue swept in on the back of the previous big news STI Herpes which also scared the living daylights out of anyone with any sort of common sense whatsoever. The younger generation have not had these scares that caused society to say a collective OMG!!! so to them  and sti is just an sti, something "someone else" gets but not them as far as they are concerned. 

 

Scare tactics are required, gruesome pictures and real statistics need to be slapped in the faces of the younger generations to make them wake the fuck up. That study up there is all well and good but telling people they are not at as much risk as others then puts them at more risk because they then  think that THEY dont have to be as careful. 

Edited by Chloe Kisses
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be illegal to advertise bareback , I cannot believe how many stupid people there are in this world! kate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be illegal to advertise bareback , I cannot believe how many stupid people there are in this world! kate

Why not let people decide for themselves what level of risk they're prepared to take? I'm not a fan of policing private behaviour among consenting adults.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not let people decide for themselves what level of risk they're prepared to take? I'm not a fan of policing private behaviour among consenting adults.

 

If a man barebacks with a wg then later has unprotected sex with his wife then that isn't really private behaviour.  He is putting another person at risk who may have no reason to suspect she is at risk and is therefore not able to make an informed decision for herself.  I would support a law criminalising the offering for sale of unprotected sexual intercourse.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a man barebacks with a wg then later has unprotected sex with his wife then that isn't really private behaviour.  He is putting another person at risk who may have no reason to suspect she is at risk and is therefore not able to make an informed decision for herself.  I would support a law criminalising the offering for sale of unprotected sexual intercourse.

It's a good thing to be able to see which escorts offer high risk services. It allows you to avoid them. Besides, regardless of what's advertised or not, the real crunch time comes in the bedroom.

If you're prepared to legislate against people's private behaviour, presumably you're ok with paying for sex being criminalised (or would be hypocritical ;) ?)

 

If a punter infects his wife, it's still private behaviour, just this time affecting another person.

Edited by MatureUschi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If younger then they will not have been around for the HIV/AIDs epidemic that took the world by surprise and caused us to reevaluate how careful we are regarding BB sex. Those from mid 30's upwards remember the campaigns and the awareness stuff, the younger lot dont. All they see are the breakthroughs and how its now managable and hear how its now not a death sentence. We were scared out of our noddys over it. 

 

I think being of an age of awareness during those times also made people more aware of other STI's and of course the HIV issue swept in on the back of the previous big news STI Herpes which also scared the living daylights out of anyone with any sort of common sense whatsoever. The younger generation have not had these scares that caused society to say a collective OMG!!! so to them  and sti is just an sti, something "someone else" gets but not them as far as they are concerned. 

 

Scare tactics are required, gruesome pictures and real statistics need to be slapped in the faces of the younger generations to make them wake the fuck up. That study up there is all well and good but telling people they are not at as much risk as others then puts them at more risk because they then  think that THEY dont have to be as careful. 

That may be so, chloe, but I read somewhere is was people in their 50's and older who were more likely to do BB sex.  They did BB for pre marital sex (As was the norm in the 70's), and the HIV thing passed them by -they were in relationships, so ignored it.  Now they are widowed or divorced their 70's behavior comes back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good thing to be able to see which escorts offer high risk services. It allows you to avoid them. Besides, regardless of what's advertised or not, the real crunch time comes in the bedroom.

If you're prepared to legislate against people's private behaviour, presumably you're ok with paying for sex being criminalised (or would be hypocritical ;) ?)

 

If a punter infects his wife, it's still private behaviour, just this time affecting another person.

 

and lets not forget that out there there is lots of shagging around going on outside the paid sex scene.  You can get HIV off someone you meet in the pub same as you can off a WG.  How do you regulate civvy BB sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and lets not forget that out there there is lots of shagging around going on outside the paid sex scene.  You can get HIV off someone you meet in the pub same as you can off a WG.  How do you regulate civvy BB sex?

Indeed. For most of us WGs regular clinic visits are a normal part of our routine. Civilians usually only go when they have a streaming discharge, itch or weird stink. I know who I'd trust more with my sexual health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good thing to be able to see which escorts offer high risk services. It allows you to avoid them.

 

I agree.  I have made a similar point before.  So long as the offering or procuring of unprotected sex for money is legal I have no objection to AW including it among the services providers and seekers can specify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you regulate civvy BB sex?

 

You don't.  It is a different world.  But just because you can't do everything about everything doesn't mean you shouldn't do something about something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If younger then they will not have been around for the HIV/AIDs epidemic that took the world by surprise and caused us to reevaluate how careful we are regarding BB sex. Those from mid 30's upwards remember the campaigns and the awareness stuff, the younger lot dont. All they see are the breakthroughs and how its now managable and hear how its now not a death sentence. We were scared out of our noddys over it. 

 

I think being of an age of awareness during those times also made people more aware of other STI's and of course the HIV issue swept in on the back of the previous big news STI Herpes which also scared the living daylights out of anyone with any sort of common sense whatsoever. The younger generation have not had these scares that caused society to say a collective OMG!!! so to them  and sti is just an sti, something "someone else" gets but not them as far as they are concerned. 

 

Scare tactics are required, gruesome pictures and real statistics need to be slapped in the faces of the younger generations to make them wake the fuck up. That study up there is all well and good but telling people they are not at as much risk as others then puts them at more risk because they then  think that THEY dont have to be as careful. 

You're certainly now wrong there, Chloe. I'm just not convinced that's a valid reason for lying (ahem, misrepresenting the truth) to people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be so, chloe, but I read somewhere is was people in their 50's and older who were more likely to do BB sex.  They did BB for pre marital sex (As was the norm in the 70's), and the HIV thing passed them by -they were in relationships, so ignored it.  Now they are widowed or divorced their 70's behavior comes back.

Apparently a combination of older people being healthier and more active than our grandparents were, availability of Viagra, post-menopausal women not having to be worried about getting pregnant any more etc. Pensioners are not that worried about AIDS either, since modern combination therapy gives HIV positive patients a more or less normal and largely healthy life span now, so if you catch it age 60, you're still going to live well beyond the point when you start peeing in your shoes. Not saying that's a good thing..... :D just an observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The red warning now goes up automatically on any new profile until a verification photo is submitted.  It doesn't really mean anything.

 

Incorrect, its not automatic for new profiles.

Profiles can still be set up without any verification photo, the Red warning is triggered by something I'm not prepared to post about in public so not to wise up the Box tickers. What I'm am prepared to say is that its a smart move by AW to clean things up in the way they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a man barebacks with a wg then later has unprotected sex with his wife then that isn't really private behaviour.  He is putting another person at risk who may have no reason to suspect she is at risk and is therefore not able to make an informed decision for herself.  I would support a law criminalising the offering for sale of unprotected sexual intercourse.

If that were to come to pass, you would find it very difficult to find a reason not to ban the sale of sexual services. Your logic is flawed in my view.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were to come to pass, you would find it very difficult to find a reason not to ban the sale of sexual services. Your logic is flawed in my view.

 

I find it quite hard to suggest the state should intervene in consenting adults having sex.  Punters and WG's are adults and know the risks. If they choose to take that risk then thats their lookout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were to come to pass, you would find it very difficult to find a reason not to ban the sale of sexual services. Your logic is flawed in my view.

 

Absurd.  You might as well say that since street prostitution is illegal it is difficult to find a reason not to ban prostitution in toto.  In Nevada in the US it is illegal for prostitutes to offer unprotected oral or intercourse yet, unlike the UK, brothels are legal.  I believe the situation is similar in some Australian states.

Slippery slope arguments are pretty much always worthless.  Everything is always somewhere on a slippery slope; the question is where you apply the breaks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a man barebacks with a wg then later has unprotected sex with his wife then that isn't really private behaviour.  He is putting another person at risk who may have no reason to suspect she is at risk and is therefore not able to make an informed decision for herself.  I would support a law criminalising the offering for sale of unprotected sexual intercourse.

 

Then why not criminalise unprotected sex when unpaid too? What exactly is the point in law?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absurd.  You might as well say that since street prostitution is illegal it is difficult to find a reason not to ban prostitution in toto.  In Nevada in the US it is illegal for prostitutes to offer unprotected oral or intercourse yet, unlike the UK, brothels are legal.  I believe the situation is similar in some Australian states.

Slippery slope arguments are pretty much always worthless.  Everything is always somewhere on a slippery slope; the question is where you apply the breaks.

 

That is the reason in every Australian state except NSW. The police there apparently randomly and periodically ring up prostitutes as potential clients and fine them severely if they are found to offer "services that are detrimental to the public health". In SA it is worse, any girl working there; even if she lives in Sydney, has to apply for a license and she would only be allowed to advertise with her face (absurd!). That's a serious situation of state nannying, I don't see it working when bareback sex for civvies is legal. We're all grown up here and should be allowed to make educated choices by ourselves.

 

Regulations never worked in the US, there are escorts; illegal of course, all over the country. Nobody except a few rich fools go to those Nevada brothels anyways when they have plenty escorts in Vegas City for much lower rates. I don't ever wish see such nonsense in the UK. Advocating safe sex is all well and good but don't expect everyone to follow the rules, what's next banning alcohol and tobacco? I compare punting to riding a motorbike. It's great and much nicer to ride without a helmet but it might save your life. People are more behaved in wearing helmets in developed countries. In some countries it's not even a requirement and done widely. But anyhow, it's up to you to decide the risk level that you're willing to accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein, I stick by my belief and post regarding advertising bb services, I feel that this should be illegal and most smart people would agree with me That practice affects wgs health along with their punters and wives/girlfriends too not to mention also possible unborn children!   Children could be born without every knowing who their Father is too as the pill isn't 100 percent effective!

 

 

GROW UP, DONT BE SILLY PUT A CONDOM ON YOUR WILLY!

 

 

 

KATE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now