sciros

Bb Or Bareback In Reviews, Do We Need A Warning In The Header.

27 posts in this topic

review 119067 say "the sex was bb"

 

I'd like to see an easiliy searchable flag on  reviews  that showed if the provider did bareback.  A-W has this as a field. The sussex forum flag them in red.

 

In general, I avoid BB providers, except maybe for a BJ given, although I wouldn't reciprocate. This is little protection I know, as everyone lies in this hobby, and I've seen providers who don't advertise BB, but often upon meeting, offer it up front, without wanting any form of certification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an interesting point. I would love it if directories  put a red flag next to a service seekers name if they have booked girls who offer bare back but thats in a perfect world. Is it not enough that you can read the reviews with you eyes and see within the content of the review that bb has been undertaken by both parties? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this were done more BB seekers would use Punternet. In general most if not all on PN are discouraging of the practice and this may help the ladies in filtering out undesirables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the rules of this forum specifically prohibit the discussion of BB providers.

 

Perhaps somebody with more knowledge than I will comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct Paul that the rules prohibit posting or requesting information about providers supplying unprotected intercourse. However this post is more generally discussing a point of principle. It should perhaps have better been on the Technical Matters forum. I leave that to the mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very interesting point.  Only yesterday I was discussing with somebody about my recent review where the guy wrote something along the lines: 'I came inside her'.  What he failed to mention was he was using a condom.  I was a bit shocked when I realised how his expression could be interpreted, although some would not be as 'thorough' as me and would not even bother about this.

 

I am sure there are lots of barebackers around there, I wonder if they ever consider the health risks or they only worry when is too late?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flagging the reviews of Wg s and Clients when the reviews state that BB sex was provided is a sound idea.  Flagging the reviewer as receiving BB sex should be a standard, (THE BIG BUT),but as always matching the psuedo name to the client so that other Wgs are aware the client had BB sex is nearly impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would personally just use my own common sense in this! Highlighting it would just encourage it!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flagging the reviews of Wg s and Clients when the reviews state that BB sex was provided is a sound idea.  Flagging the reviewer as receiving BB sex should be a standard, (THE BIG BUT),but as always matching the psuedo name to the client so that other Wgs are aware the client had BB sex is nearly impossible.

 

Another good point.  personally I was not aware that a guy can have different names when logging on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the rules of this forum specifically prohibit the discussion of BB providers.

 

Perhaps somebody with more knowledge than I will comment

But paul , we all know there isn,t anyone on here more knowledgeable than you .

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beware many foreign girls think bareback means OWO. Pity aw dont remove bare back and unprotected sex and put in peenetration (unprotected)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very interesting point.  Only yesterday I was discussing with somebody about my recent review where the guy wrote something along the lines: 'I came inside her'.  What he failed to mention was he was using a condom.  I was a bit shocked when I realised how his expression could be interpreted, although some would not be as 'thorough' as me and would not even bother about this.

 

I am sure there are lots of barebackers around there, I wonder if they ever consider the health risks or they only worry when is too late?

 

Reading your review  came inside her would make me think that the client had a condom on basis that you are an ethical provider.  Would barebackers be UK girls or foreign girls or may be girls on the street?  I guess if you are that desperate for money some girls will do anything for money?  Its a concern if this is the case but guys that don't have their brains in their trousers will not touch any girl that has BB on her likes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another good point.  personally I was not aware that a guy can have different names when logging on this site.

I think that there are two answers here! It is against the rules, punishable by expulsion, to have more than one account on this forum. To post a FR, however, you need to have a different account, and I think that that can be in a different name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another good point.  personally I was not aware that a guy can have different names when logging on this site.

 

As far as I am aware you can have a username for the Forum and another username for the Reviews!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one for Mr G to answer of course. I don't know if flagging is a good idea as it highlights this service and makes it searchable, On the other hand, to be fairer, it could also open the debate to include & flag any forms of unprotected sex for the benefit of awareness. Although not as a dangerous in terms of catching HIV, OWO/CIM indeed has risk attached to it, especially for other forms of STDs.

 

If a forum's going to be 'puritanical' about a service, albeit a taboo one, and lets be honest there is a market for it - maybe this forum would need to flag (and tar) all "risk takers"?

 

Would it be a good idea to have both forum and review accounts connected internally (they could be anyway via same email or IP addresses?), but to the forum users, a certain level of privacy can still be maintained by not directly connecting the accounts in the public domain...

 

All very grey with lots of pitfalls and something probably best left out entirely.

 

just IMO.

Edited by earlgreyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one for Mr G to answer of course. I don't know if flagging is a good idea as it highlights this service and makes it searchable, On the other hand, to be fairer, it could also open the debate to include & flag any forms of unprotected sex for the benefit of awareness. Although not as a dangerous in terms of catching HIV, OWO/CIM indeed has risk attached to it, especially for other forms of STDs.

 

If a forum's going to be 'puritanical' about a service, albeit a taboo one, and lets be honest there is a market for it - maybe this forum would need to flag (and tar) all "risk takers"?

 

Would it be a good idea to have both forum and review accounts connected internally (they could be anyway via same email or IP addresses?), but to the forum users, a certain level of privacy can still be maintained by not directly connecting the accounts in the public domain...

 

All very grey with lots of pitfalls and something probably best left out entirely.

 

just IMO.

okay then you need to put RO and Kissing as flagged as they are also services that share body fluids so can pass an STI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay then you need to put RO and Kissing as flagged as they are also services that share body fluids so can pass an STI.

RO definitely, kissing yes coldsores, but again far less than oral copulation - this is why flagging is a bad choice overall. Sex is in itself a risky business! So, the argument is moot and not worth flagging IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, for the most part because of the attracting bb seekers though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, for the most part because of the attracting bb seekers though

Surely a BB seeker would not bother with PN where BB is definitely shunned and would go straight to AW where there there are loads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely a BB seeker would not bother with PN where BB is definitely shunned and would go straight to AW where there there are loads.

Normally yes but if reviews that mention bb providers are highlighted then they may start to look here.

Edited by Chloe Kisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading your review  came inside her would make me think that the client had a condom on basis that you are an ethical provider.  Would barebackers be UK girls or foreign girls or may be girls on the street?  I guess if you are that desperate for money some girls will do anything for money?  Its a concern if this is the case but guys that don't have their brains in their trousers will not touch any girl that has BB on her likes. 

All of those and more.It can be anybody at any level and any price

 

Surely a BB seeker would not bother with PN where BB is definitely shunned and would go straight to AW where there there are loads.

What you are missing is that age old flaw of AW.Firstly,as we know,you have a whole load of box tickers on there who according to the profiles offer everything.When you get to the door however.

Then you have those who don't understand the terms and think bb means owo etc.Think about BB like any other service someone may be looking for.Would they prefer to take pot luck,or go somewhere where said service has been confirmed as actually being on offer?This is why flagging isnt such a good idea.It's like threads i've seen on BB before and elsewhere people asking for others to make BB "warning" threads.You always get the feeling that more than a few just want recomendations.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These posts and discussions on bareback sex always degenerate into these rather silly arguments verging on demands to chop off offender’s right hands. Why can’t everyone accept that having bareback sex is just another level of risk in this game and leave it to the individuals to use their own judgement and preferences when deciding who they will or won’t see?

 

You surely all don’t believe that there aren’t a good number of ‘clean’ WGs who don’t offer bareback and, indeed, who probably vehemently eschew it in their profile, but have nevertheless deliberately engaged in unprotected sex with a client at some time.

 

I didn’t read the transgressing review before it was deleted, but have to ask was that a good idea? Did the offending lady have other reviews, and if so have they been removed also? Is she now on a review black list? At least if I can read a review and I don’t like the service that the WG offers I can avoid her. Surely that is a better option than being in the dark about her service?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These posts and discussions on bareback sex always degenerate into these rather silly arguments verging on demands to chop off offender’s right hands. Why can’t everyone accept that having bareback sex is just another level of risk in this game and leave it to the individuals to use their own judgement and preferences when deciding who they will or won’t see?

 

You surely all don’t believe that there aren’t a good number of ‘clean’ WGs who don’t offer bareback and, indeed, who probably vehemently eschew it in their profile, but have nevertheless deliberately engaged in unprotected sex with a client at some time.

 

I didn’t read the transgressing review before it was deleted, but have to ask was that a good idea? Did the offending lady have other reviews, and if so have they been removed also? Is she now on a review black list? At least if I can read a review and I don’t like the service that the WG offers I can avoid her. Surely that is a better option than being in the dark about her service?

and is the man on a review blacklist too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These posts and discussions on bareback sex always degenerate into these rather silly arguments verging on demands to chop off offender’s right hands. Why can’t everyone accept that having bareback sex is just another level of risk in this game and leave it to the individuals to use their own judgement and preferences when deciding who they will or won’t see?

 

You surely all don’t believe that there aren’t a good number of ‘clean’ WGs who don’t offer bareback and, indeed, who probably vehemently eschew it in their profile, but have nevertheless deliberately engaged in unprotected sex with a client at some time.

 

I didn’t read the transgressing review before it was deleted, but have to ask was that a good idea? Did the offending lady have other reviews, and if so have they been removed also? Is she now on a review black list? At least if I can read a review and I don’t like the service that the WG offers I can avoid her. Surely that is a better option than being in the dark about her service?

Yes. somehow all those who declare they don't do bareback and never would etc. seem to have quite an interest in knowing who does. They seem to want to invoke a 'nanny state' approach to their own activities. I get the feeling they are all waiting and thinking 'are we allowed to do bareback now?'

 

That it got deleted from the site its probably due to nimbyism.

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