This post was prompted by a post I saw on another board where a hobbyist was trying to find justification for dong BBFS with a provider.

It made me think that if a provider actually offered BBFS to this guy [he says he hasn't found one who has], she has offered it to others, and is risking the health and lives of people in and out of the hobby.

It's been said here before that BBFS is more common than is admitted.  It fulfills a fantasy guys have and they have obviously decided that the pleasure outweighs the risk.  Just think what it would do to the hobby and our families if you had have one traveling client/hobbyist spreading HIV around the country.

In fact, maybe the hobbyist who has indulged in BBFS should also be outed.  If the provider's a repeat offender so is he.

-- Modified on 12/24/2007 8:35:06 AM

While I agree there will be certain people that a provider does not use a condom with (boyfriend, husband) if a provider is not using condoms with strangers (hobbyists) then I don't see anything wrong with letting people know who both of them are. Providers and hobbyists both want to try to protect themselves as much as they can.

b-

I would want to know if a provider was practicing dangerously, and I presume you mean by "outing" posting her practices and provider name/provider phone number etc on the board.  

If you meant her personal info and a true outing- which I doubt you meant, then no- I see no justification for truly outing anyone- that element of trust is necessary for all of us to survive here!

BBFS is so powerful that folks who participate brag and tell others about it. People talk and the word gets around. Evently folks both providers and clients who do such things get put on DNS lists. You all would be surprised to find out how many people request BBFS on a regular basis and how many providers try to be slick and offer it by going with the flow.

-- Modified on 12/24/2007 9:16:46 AM

I've heard occasionally of pretty extensive bareback camel slides which comes pretty close to the line of unsafe.  Any thoughts on how unsafe?  I would guess a fairly significant herpes risk at least.

By outing, I'm presuming you're not meaning giving their "real names?" That's the only thing I consider outing.

The guys may become pariahs, but the women might actually benefit.

When you ask should you 'out' a provider and maybe the hobbiest too, I assume you wouldn't do so based on rumor. As you know, rumor in this business is rampant and done so at times maliciously. Are you asking that if you are with a provider and she offers bbfs should you out her? In that case perhaps write a review and put that info in it and of course stating you declined. JMHO

I believe that BBFS has no place in the hobby.

A provider may offer that service to one client but not to another. Then that may put her safety in danger, if another client forces the issue.  

No BBFS reviews should be allowed either. That will only encourage the behavior.

Hobbyists who choose to engage in this dangerous behavior shouldn't be outed either.

Some hobbyists that find out who does BBFS will call the providers that offer the service. So that will only promote the behavior.

Staff already did an experiment with this.

In practice no. It would the exact opposite effect than intended. Plus it starts us down a very slippery slope of being the "morality police".

I know it a matter of health, not morality, but that's where it starts, not where it ends. Our own basic human nature of wanting to judge others will eventually win out. We like to think that we are more open minded here, than the rest of general society, but we can be just as judgemental around here as any other segment of society.

But if that's the case, why don't providers advertise it more openly?  Why refuse to publicize something that will bring in more bucks and create an excuse to raise rates?  I think the opposite might happen.  She might attract more of those looking for BBFS, but she would lose many more of those who don't want the risk.  If some people don't mind risking their lives, I say let them find each other and stay in their own little circle.

BTW, when I say "outing" I don't mean posting any information beyond what she already provides on her website ["name", contact info].  No personal info or revealing of incall locations.

And why should hobbyists be exempt from exposure?  Once they engage in BB, they are putting us at risk too.  I don't have to know about him, but providers might find it relevant.  If a hobbyist makes it a point to ask for BBFS, providers can alert each other.  Chances are, he might have found one provider who accommodated him.  Providers can exchange this info among themselves and make a decision about how to handle it.

But we can't always make hard decisions with guaranteed happy outcomes.  That's why we have to be even more careful about how far we want to take anything.

It's a matter of priority: health and life over abstract morality.  I'd rather be judgmental, or judged, and living than principled and dead.

Again in theory this is a grat idea but in practice, not so much.

The problem is, we're not dealing in absolutes.If outing people who engage in unsafe pratices would make us safe, I would be all for it, but it won't. You made a statement,

"Just think what it would do to the hobby and our families if you had have one traveling client/hobbyist spreading HIV around the country."

Surely you don't think that there aren't already many, many  people doing just that right now?

Now the idea of the providers sharing the names of hobbyists that pressure them for BBFS, that's an idea that I could get behind. That would be a purely safety issue for the providers benefit, that would have the  additional, positve effect of making the hobby safer for everyone.

If a provider does offer BB during a session, I feel a client should have the right to end the session and demand some, if not all, of the money back.  No provider has the right to put my health at risk without my consent.

At the same time, if a client asks for BBFS, a provider should be allowed to end the session immediately without compensation.  It could just be an innocent request, but how does one know that he has not requested it from other providers?  Or that he has not already done it?  He also has no right to put her health at risk.

I know that just the fact of having sex with multiple strangers itself is risky but that's a known factor.  I'm fully aware of this going in.  Beyond that, there are safety measures that can and should be taken.  This might seem harsh, but I'd rather err on the side of caution.

The chances are we all go bareback with our SO's or spouses. The chances are that providers do the same with theirs. What guarantees do any of us have that our non-P4P partners are absolutely safe? The only accurate answer is that we don't. As long as you wear a condom during every session you are at no more risk from a provider who offers BBFS than one who doesn't. Correct?

It seems to me there are two separate issues here. Safety from disease and the outing of providers and hobbyists for not practicing safe sex. Practicing safe sex yourself should eliminate the need for worry regarding the former. With all of the egos, innuendo and out right BS on the internet it seems unlikely that outing people would do anything to end or even alter the latter.

Honestly, If I posted tomorrow that provider XYZ offered me BBFS for an additional $100 last night there would be posts from guys who have seen her before telling me I was full of shit, other guys patting me on the back, and PM's from still more guys wanting her contact info.

-- Modified on 12/24/2007 11:54:19 AM

The only time I offer BBFS is if they have their papers, proving that they've been recently tested for STD's

No STD/HIV test? no BBFS

Out of all the clients I've seen...only two could produce their papers.

The rest said that they don't have them...and got upset when I said no bb anything.

I learned my lesson early on, when I contracted trich twice in less than 6 months.

If a provider offers BB you are entitled to say no thanks and use a cover. Thats it.  I suppose if you think its "to risky" you are also free to cut the session short and leave. But IMHO you have no reason to expect a refund.

 After all as was mentioned somewhere, we all enjoy BB with someone.

-J

People also die in car accidents, even with their seatbelts on.  Is that a reason not to use them?

The only guarantees against pregnancy and STDs is no sex, but since I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm not advocating that.  Unless you are watching someone 24 hours a day, you never know what they're really doing; who knows this better than a hobbyist?

Yes, we all do BB with our SOs but the difference is that the provider has to weigh the benefits of her safety against her profit, and safety doesn't always win.  Many hobbyists are happy to reinforce this decision.

If you're a conscientious hobbyist, you make sure you are covered and you get tested regularly, especially if you have an SO.  If your SO might be banging other guys, chances are she will also take precautions if only because she doesn't want to have to explain how you unexpectedly got an STD, much less deal with an unexpected pregnancy.  Chances are stronger the neither of you will be bringing STDs into the mix, at least due to fear of getting caught, when you guys do BB.

A provider who engages in BBFS increases her chances of contracting an STD.  That means the client's chances are also increased, even with a condom - condoms break, no?  Want to take the risk that you might be that guy? All it takes is one.

As for hobbyists contacting you about any provider who is outed - good.  That means they're outing themselves.  My bet is that there are even more hobbyists who will thank you for warning them and make it a point of avoiding her.  Am I giving hobbyists too much credit?

-- Modified on 12/24/2007 5:08:30 PM

If a provider is offering you BB, she has probably offered it to others and may have even engaged in it.  Unless you think you are that "special" guy and she's only doing it for you.

Asking for a cover reduces the chances of contracting an STD, but if she possibly has one, she has no business potentially exposing you to it.

The reason to expect a refund is the unnecessary health risk.  If a hobbyist knew there was one, no matter how minimal, he might not have made the appointment in the first place.  Of course, providers cannot be explicit on their websites so all we have are reviews to go by.

If it's already in her reviews, then the hobbyist should have done his homework, he has no right to expect a refund.  However, providers often ask guys not to put certain things in reviews, so even if you do the reading, you have to keep that in mind.  If a provider genuinely believes she is doing nothing wrong by offering BBFS, it should be in all the reviews.  Even if it's not, I wouldn't assume I was the first.

Sorry, but I don't believe in paying people to risk my safety.

-- Modified on 12/24/2007 5:07:13 PM

"If a hobbyist knew there was one, no matter how minimal, he might not have made the appointment in the first place"

There is always a health risk, no one here is naive enought to think that there is no risk to this hobby, that's the reason we wear condoms in the first place. It doesn't eliminate the risk, but it does make it an acceptable one to most of us.

You're a big girl and I am sure you are perfectly capable of making your own decisions, but this is a definite case of TMI. I don't think you are doing yourself a bit of good by sharing this information.

I am sure we live hundreds if not thousands of miles apart, but if you had been on my short list, so to speak, this revelation on your part would almost certainly have convinced me not to see you. No one wants to hear that a provider that they were considering seeing had contracted any type of STD, no matter how long ago because of her engaging in BBFS with a client.

"I learned my lesson early on, when I contracted trich twice in less than 6 months."

These are words that should make most hobbyists cringe at there very mention.

You seem to have missed the statement preceding it: "The reason to expect a refund is the unnecessary health risk."  Emphasis on "unnecessary."  I have never said anywhere that there was no risk.

Some guys convince themselves that the risk is miniscule compared to the pleasure.

How would yo feel if someone told you that they were going to down a half bottle of Jack before driving on the highway.  Sure, they might kill themselves or someone else, but then, they might not, so what the hell?   After all, some people do drive drunk ad still make it home ok.  So to them, the risk is justified.

If I saw someone who was obviously drunk or impaired get behind the wheel of a moving car, I'd call it into the cops.  I don't have to absolutely know he's going to cause a fatality, but his impairment increases the likelihood it will happen.  Shouldn't we hold our safety in equal regard?

-- Modified on 12/24/2007 5:32:47 PM

-- Modified on 12/24/2007 5:40:27 PM

YOu don't seem to be getting much traction on this issue. Regardless of how you word it, no one seems to be lending much support to your idea.

You seem to be extremely interested in this subject. Are you perhaps having fellings of mortality going into the holiday season?

I agree we should be as responsible as possible, but the fact is, we are dealing with human beings, and there is no perfect system.

As for your idea about asking for a refund, why don't you just try it the next time you are offered BBFS and let the rest of us know how it works out for you? We await the results of your research with bated breath. lol

It not only makes hobbyists cringe but as a privider it makes me cringe. On the first point, I wouldn't care if his papers came with the surgeon general's seal of approval. No bbfs, not now not ever. As to the second comment about the STDs that were contracted twice in less than six months. Holy crap. TMI TMI TMI. Glad I don't own stock in that. I think I just saw it take a nose dive out the window. As to a 'refund'. What are we? Macys? Come on now. Cut your 'losses' and move on. All sex with anyone is a risk. Yes, even with a condom. With a provider, with a hobbyiest, with a civvie, etc etc.  But to have been in the session and already done who knows what, to expect a refund at that stage of the game is a little nit picky. You think your provider isn't doing bb with her s/o?? Where does one draw the line? Would you leave a session if you knew she had bb with her s/o? What's the dif?

Next time, I will keep certain things to myself.

Everyone feels so strongly here about bbfs.

I shall reconsider what I posted before.

Again, just stating my opinion.

I didn't say you didn't quote me, just that you ignored the quotes that contradicted your purposes.  That's what "out of context" means.  I already provided an example above.

I didn't ask for a "perfect" system.  Just trying to make a good one better.  There's no need to exaggerate my points.  My interest has nothing to do with mortality but in seeing a major issue that I thought would be worth addressing.

I'm pretty sure the refund thing will not go over well at all.  I was expressing a personal opinion, and I don't believe an unreasonable one.

-- Modified on 12/24/2007 6:15:10 PM

and I don't really disagree with you on principle. I just think that your proposal will cause more problems than it will solve.

You do realize of course that the general community could make the same case as you have made about BBFS against the hobby in general. A case could be made that the hobby presents a health issue, not a moral one. The argument would be specious of course, but it could still be argued. It's all a matter of degree.

Recently tested? Do you realize that sometimes it takes months for HIV to show up? You trust some papers that a client shows you and then have BS? Disgusting and disturbing!



-- Modified on 12/24/2007 6:23:27 PM

Not one I have a really good answer to, but there seems to be a sentiment here that it's not worth thinking about.

I'm concerned that too many of us here seem to have this attitude that we should just let it work itself out.  Even if you don't like my ideas about "outing" or a refund [btw, asking for compensation in lieu of a potential health risk is not "nit-picking" - some would consider a safe environment a basic premise of a good providing; someone who does not deliver on this can be said not to be doing her job], just "move on" seems to be a bit facile.

[...without reading other posts. Purely a response to original post.]

And think of the millions of men/women who aren't engaged in the hobby who are practicing unsafe sex on a daily basis with multiple partners each month/week/day. Would you out these people in a public forum, as well?

While I understand and wholeheartedly agree with your concerns, people who choose to have unsafe sex do so at their OWN RISK. They know that it is potentially lethal, and choose to do it anyway. It is impossible to police people's values and morals. In a hobby that is already a target for scrutiny and persecution, is it really necessary to begin shooting each other in the back, as well?

What people do behind closed doors is their own business. Everyone has an issue with something, and everyone has the right to feel how they do. But "outing" people for what they choose to do in private, with full knowledge of the potential consequences, is just one more form of persecution.

If it's not your thing, avoid it. We are all Adults here, with functioning computers that connect us to a vast wealth of sexual possibility. Make the choice that most suits you, and let everyone else do the same.

And tho I do not personally practice BB with clients, I do it regularly (with guys I've never met before) for porn shoots.

If a client's results were returned within 48 hrs of the appt, she has a minimal chance of contracting an STD. There is always the outside chance the guy is a nasty nympho who fucks several partners each day unprotected, but barring that scenario, she should be rather safe.

Hey, we're only required to test every 30 days in porn and just imagine what a person can be unwittingly, or very willingly, exposed to over a thirty day period.

I think the judgmental attitudes of many people on this board is telling, if not a sad indicator of how narrow-minded people can be in the face of the unfamiliar. I'm not saying we should all go out and screw BB, but once again, I think folks shouldn't knock others for what they do in private. Lord knows, we ALL have our oddities.

What if he had a clean report for her because he took the test two days after the infectious encounter, rather than the 10 day mark? What if he didn't retest? What if he received a false negative on his test and really has HIV? Or even her for that matter. Answer that. There are too many ifs here and lives at stake. It affects the whole community so this is NOT "private" life. She is seeing men who are seeing other women who are seeing other men...








-- Modified on 12/24/2007 11:01:44 PM

While unwise, and something I personally don't approve of, it is up to the two consenting adults to decide what they will or will not engage in.  And that's really no one else's business.  

It's your responsibility to decide the health risk you wish to take and the choice of provider and protection should be dictated by that choice.   But that's for your own encounters.  It's not up to you or me to decide to "tattle" on two consenting adults when you don't agree or approve of the behaviors they share.

Are you going to start outing autoerotics next because they like it when people strangle them and might accidentally die during their appointment?

Those two engaged in autoerotics may accidentally die. Other people are not being affected.

-- Modified on 12/24/2007 11:37:51 PM

See Related Link to my post of the same title on The Erotic Highway where I give links and supporting evidence.

I completely agree with you.

It should be mandatory that a provider advertise that she provides BBFS (ymmv, stipulations, etc.)

I do not want to be with anyone engaging in BBFS. Test or no test. Period.

I agree with you.

I can't even imagine accepting that offer though as I value my life. I will say I think girls that do this generally, would be safer than slipping in your Girlfriend BB,.

In fact, every single GF I've had in the last 4 years has thrown that possibility out without thinking (and I accepted zero times-- freaking LA man..). The providers (read: Generally) at least think, and certainly get tested (again: generally).

IMO any girl that would do that is on the fringe of the proffesion, is not a true pro, and probably either liked the guy or had a ton of cash thrown at her. I mean certainly there is some s*** that goes down that we never even know about, but if you hard hat up and grab and AIM test here and there, I wouldn't over think it.

I say out em' though (provider/hobbyist..) F it.

-m

tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.

The use of HazMat suits ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazmat_suit ) really would make this hobby safe (unlike condoms which merely make it safer).

-- Modified on 12/25/2007 1:27:31 AM

You raise a good point here.

However, I'm not sure I'd call it the 'morality' police. I am sort of with the slippery slope concept, You could say the same about BBBJ or any other explicit contact of that type that isnt FS. I mean pretty soon we will be going at it with saran wrap. That also could apply to DFK. Your taking a risk when you do any of that FS is just where the big killers are trasmitted, generally, and I think that's why the big deal.

-m

lol at that last paragraph. I don't know why , it made me chuckle.

-m

I don't.

Zero kids and counting buddy.

-m

Well,

While I'm not necessarily defending this full disclosure. Her rules are the same as a porn star. There are plenty of girls in porn I would hire as a provider, despite their BB on film. Requiring papers is a good way to weed people out, and as she said she generally doesn't get these clients. In addition, while the truth hurts, I'm sure there are much worse stories out there.

Different than, 'like oh my god your cute, go BBFS.'

-m

"And tho I do not personally practice BB with clients, I do it regularly (with guys I've never met before) for porn shoots."


And there was the point I was trying to make. Reason is those pay more than us ?

Only 30 days in porn? That seems a bit light. You'd think every 10. Oh well. Truthfully I still say it's more dangerous to do a regular girl in a club BB (Or any retarded LA woman... no offense..), or even with a condom than either a provider or a porn star. And I stand by this statement, I've been with dozens of girls in foreign countries and am 100 percent clean. What scares me the most...when the GF pushes for BB. MUCH MORE SCARY.. on goes the hoodie

-m,

I pretty much agree with what you are saying here...
Abstinence IS the only guarantee of not catching anything. Honestly, in my experience however a good provider is much more cautious about protecting herself than a lot of unattached civie girls are...food for thought if you are "out there".

Again, I see the issue of safe sex as not having much to do with outing or not outing providers or hobbyists who don't practice it. We need to do all we can to protect ourselves. Depending on the information highway to make a lady or gentleman safe is pretty risky if you ask me.

Nothing personal and to be really honest I didn't read your whole post as it got way too long and technical for me to care. I do know that statistical research can be read in many ways and the vast majority of the time anyone can make any vast amount of data fit any hypothesis they may have.

I believe condoms actually decrease the risk of pregnancy and STD's, that is why I use them.

b-

-- Modified on 12/25/2007 6:14:39 AM

This has been a pretty interesting discussion.  I am not absolutely wedded to the ideas of outing or a refund but I wanted to discuss an important topic and suggest some ways to deal with the issue.

I'm still thinking through my ideas so I may change them later and this has been a great help.

I found it interesting that those who disagreed with me suggested no active alternative.  Pretty much everyone on that end suggested doing nothing or that it was simply a matter between two people.  Since STDs are transmissible and at least one has a high fatality rate, I don't accept that last argument.  I don't have to know about anyone's personal sex life.  If someone injects heroin in my presence, I think I can safely assume they've done it before without having to know their life story.  As for the first argument, imagine an HIV epidemic within the hobby.  What would you consider doing then?  Why wouldn't you do it now?  

I did suggest one alternative for providers, that they notify each other about clients who insist on BBFS.  Maybe hobbyists should discuss providers who offer BBFS in the same manner on the "Reviewers Only" board.  This way, we can see if some kind of pattern has been established, there's no general outing but people can still make informed decisions.

In this hobby, we accept outing for a number of reasons: NCNS, physical abuse, rip-offs.  Yet someone who engages in unhealthy behavior that could kill people is not to be warned against?  Perhaps there should be a separate thread on what constitutes acceptable grounds for outing.

The snag in the outing argument is that people do engage in BBFS in civvie life.  How do we know they are not bringing in STDs from there?  We don't.  Which is why it is even more important to
be strident about protection in the hobby.  Should anyone avoid seeing a provider, or client, if they engaged in BBFS in civvie life?  That's a knotty question that I'm still trying to entangle.  Assuming that most providers I've already seen and am about to see, probably do BBFS in civvie life with an SO [hopefully not with casual one-nighters], obviously I don't and can't avoid them.  Still thinking about that one.

Perhaps we can look at the porn industry and how they handled the HIV panic a few years back.  They shut down production, had everyone re-tested and contained the spread.  Do people agree they did the right thing?  On what grounds?  Or should they have just let the actor[s] go right on working allowing each film crew to deal with the matter individually as some here suggest for the hobby?

As for the refund issue, as I already said, I didn't expect it to be popular but it does raise the issue of what our minimum expectation from providers is.  There has been discussion in the past about the appropriate circumstances for either a refund or some other kind of compensation usually if a provider does not "do her job".  Does that apply here?  Someone sees a provider based on a combination of factors - should the presumption of safety be considered one of them?  Another scenario:  a session is in progress, more than one pop is allowed.  After the first pop, the provider starts to smoke pot to relax.  Now the legal stakes are raised.  Can the client end the session there and demand a [partial] refund because she has just potentially increased his legal liability without his prior consent?  So, providers, under what circumstances would you feel it was acceptable provide compensation to a client?

When I said I learned my lesson early on...I meant it.

After catching that nasty bug from a client. I told everyone...no bbfs.

What I told everyone was something I USED to do.

I have a boyfriend now...and even he said "No BBFS with clients."

He convinced me to stop it. So I did.

I apologize for not making myself clearer.

I agree that testing should be required more frequently. Every 15 days was my number... I have no problem paying for an extra test each month. But thankfully, contracting an STD is the least of my worries in porn. Finding birth control that doesn't make me fat is much harder!

I also strongly advocate use of condoms in porn. I believe that it will help young people feel more at ease with using them in private. Being dead is not cool. Being alive is much much better.

Oh, and porn doesn't pay a fraction of what I make as an escort. I do it because I love it, I love sex, and I'm a camera junky.

I don't agree with most of what you said. But I appreciate you bringing up the topic. It has spawned some new thought. Revisited in a month or two, we should see some alternatives I think.

Everyone should use condoms in the porn industry.

Look what happened to that porn actor who goes by the stage name Darren James, he tested positive for HIV in 2004.

Its a sobering reminder for people to practice safe sex.

A normal hobbyist would express that in email. If he doesn't he should. Too bad hobbyists don't have a small profile of some sort. A girl can walk out the door I suppose. This is quite different.

-- Modified on 12/25/2007 11:49:08 AM

Pick whatever egregious behavior you like, it's not up to us to pass judgment on what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms, hobby or not.  Nor is it our job to out them in the name of the common good.   You would think on this site in particular that would be standard MO, IMO.  Even in reviews, most people are simply stating fact for others to interpret and judge for themselves, not necessarily passing judgment for others to accept or deny.

If a guy is practicing safe sex during a meeting, then what the woman does or doesn't do with others is irrelevant. If he thinks it's not, he needs to find a new hobby.