Should BBBJ's be Included in a Standard GFE Session?

[lenny]

I'm assuming you mean test results and BBFS,

Yes. The reference was to test results, not BBFS.

Not sure what the rest of your post/putdown was on about, aside from that.

As is typical with hit and run type posts, they don't add anything of substance
to the topic of conversation.

I generally ignore them.

 

[sonoman]

As for the risks being "much higher", how high is high, & do you have stats/proof to back that up?
I've read of SP's here who use drugs, see homeless clients, clients who visit SWs, etc. How many
SP's have shown you their STD test results?

I'm pretty sure statisitics have indicated time and again that SW's are more likely to be infected with any number of STD's than non-SW's. I'm not going to post a source for you, any more than I would trying to prove the sky is blue.

As for stereotype, I don't need to know the health status of every SP within a particular category to know the overall risk associated with providers in that category. I know that I'm reducing my risk by not seeing SW's, even if I can't be certain of the risk associated with any individual SP I choose to see. Make sense?

 

[huggzy]

hey hugzy, need lenny say anything more? why don't you chime in on your thoughts on this gem.

Why don't you go back to writing threads about "How you hate this time of year" and all that other garbage contained in your useless 7,800 posts

 

[*Sven*]

I voted no. I love BBBJ service but I feel it is up to the each SP to decide if they want to provide this service.

I, for one, am fucking shocked...

 

[HubbaHubba]

Why don't you go back to writing threads about "How you hate this time of year" and all that other garbage contained in your useless 7,800 posts

not even you could back him up on that one hey hugz well you still got the pay now or pay later thread going for ya, that type of information is invaluable.

 

[lenny]

I'm pretty sure statisitics have indicated time and again that SW's are more likely to be infected with any number of STD's than non-SW's. I'm not going to post a source for you, any more than I would trying to prove the sky is blue.

I believe that is correct. What i had in mind was low track SW's vs other SP's.
I guess there isn't much info or stats on the second group's health.

As for stereotype, I don't need to know the health status of every SP within a particular category to know the overall risk associated with providers in that category. I know that I'm reducing my risk by not seeing SW's, even if I can't be certain of the risk associated with any individual SP I choose to see. Make sense?

True, in the sense that in Russian roulette your chances are better with a 6 bullet
capacity gun than with a weapon that gives you a 1 in 4 chance of killing you, with
a single shot.

Seeing only a single SP whose test results have always all been negative would
also improve your odds of not getting that bullet in the brain.

We all have our tolerable levels of risk, whether it's total abstinence, masterbating
with sex dolls, seeing internet SP's, or having BBFS for $5 in HIV plagued Africa.

 

[HubbaHubba]

When did PSE services become the expectation of Standard GFE???? Absolutely NOT!
GFE = sensual open-minded intimacy without compromising either parties health.
BBBJ should NOT be expected.

May I ask you something. Is it ok to compromise your health if it's now considered PSE and an agency/ SP charges extra for it?

 

[huggzy]

not even you could back him up on that one hey hugz well you still got the pay now or pay later thread going for ya, that type of information is invaluable.

Well HH, I've received three referrals from that thread so I'm finding that thread quite useful actually.

I'm not joined to any member here unlike you and ITB seem to be joined at the cock and ass. I don't care who the poster is, if I agree with his/her perspective I'll back them up. What I don't do is spend my life on here posting about inane, non-escort related topics because I have nothing better to do like you apparently don't

But that's ok...you still have this board going for ya and I won't take that from you, that type of life is invaluable.

 

[HubbaHubba]

But that's ok...you still have this board going for ya and I won't take that from you, that type of life is invaluable.

Thanks Hugz!

 

[huggzy]

Thanks Hugz!

No problem. I would think that your reality must be a little depressing and downright sobering.

 

[Pillowtalk]

I believe that is correct. What i had in mind was low track SW's vs other SP's.
I guess there isn't much info or stats on the second group's health..

Actually there have been testing on this group, and compared to the general population. You should research this, before you jump into any assumptions. Just as the research is out there regarding the stats on the DTES SWs. The possibility of stds is less about the fact they do sex work, and more about everything else in their lifestyle. A common reason for being DTES SWs is iv drug use, and a typical iv drug user is more likely to have HIV (or something less life threatening like Hep C) than the general population. And sps at what could be best described as a higher level are less likely to have stds (and more likey to have safer sex practises) than the general population. I think it is a study out of the Netherlands, but there is all kinds of info. Even on this site.

And if you are really truly confused by it all, rather than just make things up that fit your preferences, why not either visit the Health forum here where others have asked questions and gotten answers, or pose a specific question yourself.

And for the record, no one suggested you should put a condom on your tongue in order to dfk. The suggestion was to not do dfk or any kind of K at all.

.

True, in the sense that in Russian roulette your chances are better with a 6 bullet
capacity gun than with a weapon that gives you a 1 in 4 chance of killing you, with
a single shot.

Seeing only a single SP whose test results have always all been negative would
also improve your odds of not getting that bullet in the brain. .

Negative for what tho? If you are under the mistaken belieft that HIV/AIDs is the sole motivation for avoiding unsafe sexual activities, then you need to get your head screwed on straight and actually listen (read) what is actually being said. Typical SWs don't kiss or daty or do anything much that has become pretty common indoors. I think there are some who would be pretty shocked by the idea of kissing a date. I think that you take advantage of some of these SWs by indicating to them that they won't have to do anything else, will be paid for a longer time, and won't have to hustle for a few hours to make the same dough. It is one thing to make the offer to a 200/hr sp who already provides these kinds of services, but for SWs who don't it just gives me the creeps that you dangle this carrot in front of them and have them sit up and beg for it.

.

We all have our tolerable levels of risk, whether it's total abstinence, masterbating
with sex dolls, seeing internet SP's, or having BBFS for $5 in HIV plagued Africa.

The question at hand is not so much what is the clients tolerance for risk, but does the sp doing it have all the facts, and is she making a decision to do this based on real facts and not just the made up ones often presented. Like there is a difference betwee swallowing, CIM, or just a bbbj. (There isn't) The only safe way to bbbj is possibly with a guy who has no prostate and thus no fluids. It is not a random chance, for an sp, it is an inevitable outcome. They do this daily, several times a day in most cases. It is inevitable that something will happen eventually. For a client, they are on the giving end, and do not expose themselves to the same risks. It is near impossible for fluids from her mouth to travel down the uretha, for example. Obviously fluids leak out immediately into the mouth and down the throat. Obviously that is a completely different level of risk. It is not 1/6 or 1/4, or whatever. If the guy has an std she has a 100% chance of getting it. Chance is not certainty, it is "possibility". Denying it is stupid. Making informed decisions is not.

Wherever you see an sp charging extra for it is where you see she knows damn well she is risking her health, but provides it for an extra buck to reduce the number of times she is exposing her health. It is simple. Don't try to make them into heroes or braver than everyone else for doing it or liking it. It is like saying the people driving drunk and erratically are being brave and just 'willing to take that risk because life is more fun with risk".

 

[huggzy]

When did PSE services become the expectation of Standard GFE???? Absolutely NOT!
GFE = sensual open-minded intimacy without compromising either parties health.
BBBJ should NOT be expected.

Pooners have been arguing that SP's mislead their clients with the GFE term since before you were born.

 

[huggzy]

" "Chance is not certainty, it is "possibility". Denying it is stupid. Making informed decisions is not.
Wherever you see an sp charging extra for it is where you see she knows damn well she is risking her health, but provides it for an extra buck to reduce the number of times she is exposing her health. It is simple. Don't try to make them into heroes or braver than everyone else for doing it or liking it. It is like saying the people driving drunk and erratically are being brave and just 'willing to take that risk because life is more fun with risk." "

agreed.

No one is arguing that you have to provide a bbbj.

Just don't call your service a GFE if it doesn't include a bbbj.

Do yourself a favor and call your service a SAFE GFE if that's what your providing. That saves everyone from getting into arguments later. If you fail to do that then you're just begging to get into fights, get bad reviews and the like.

Simple, right?

 

[huggzy]

Personally, I find the term 'SAFE GFE' misleading.

And that's why you continue to mislead your clients. We are telling you that you're misleading us yet you consciously continue to ignore us.

 

[Pillowtalk]

And that's why you continue to mislead your clients. We are telling you that you're misleading us yet you consciously continue to ignore us.

Why dont you just ask for what you want, and if they don't provide it move on. Your constant whining is getting on my last nerve. Reviews are here to be used. If you can't manage to read one, maybe someone who cares can respond to you via pm.

You must be a joy to have as a client. Pushy, demanding, aggressive, rude, paranoid, edgy, hostile, contemptuous. All the main attributes any sp loves to have in a visitor.

 

[Pillowtalk]

Actually I don't mislead my clients at all.
You can't put blame on me as a misleading sp without any knowledge of my services or how I advertise myself.
That's a little haste and ignorant don't you think?

I think it is pretty obvious when you said NO bbbjs ever. huggz has reading problems tho, so bear with him.

 

[huggzy]

Why dont you just ask for what you want, and if they don't provide it move on. Your constant whining is getting on my last nerve. Reviews are here to be used. If you can't manage to read one, maybe someone who cares can respond to you via pm.

You must be a joy to have as a client. Pushy, demanding, aggressive, rude, paranoid, edgy, hostile, contemptuous. All the main attributes any sp loves to have in a visitor.

Because you get countless SP's who won't "tell details over the phone" and you have to show up in person. Or you get SP's when you ask these questions who get all angry, upset and lecture you (a la Phone Girl or Te Amo Escorts) when you call. Who wants to deal with that shit? No one...but the guys are forced to do this and it can be quite unpleasant.

I am an absolute pushover when I'm with a provider who communicates very clearly and provides what they promise - and am a joy to be around with these women. I am hostile and contemptuous and am anything but a pushover when I'm dealing with people who aren't. I'm guessing that you fall into the latter category.

I'm not interested in reading reviews on a board that are so often influenced and manipulated by the SPs themselves - I don't trust them. One of the reasons that they are ambigious in many cases is because of the liberal use of the term GFE.

Why won't you use the term "Safe GFE" Pillowtalk, when 66% of the respondents on this poll, and the pooners on this board, keep insisting that you should not use the term GFE if you don't provide bbbj?

 

[huggzy]

Actually I don't mislead my clients at all.
You can't put blame on me as a misleading sp without any knowledge of my services or how I advertise myself.
That's a little haste and ignorant don't you think?

My only point voiced here is that I am against BBBJ being expected from STANDARD GFE service. Which was the intial posting.
I am not afraid nor am I retricted to voice my opinion here. Also, my question was - if you would like me to clarify.

When did PSE Service become the expectation for STANDARD GFE ?

So in answer to your suggestion that I should advertise 'safe gfe' my response is that I personally find the term 'SAFE GFE' misleading, if you really want disect it. Any service that includes fluid exchange is upping the 'risk factor' of which LFK, DFK and DATY are inclusive.

To answer your question again...SINCE BEFORE YOU WERE BORN.

And you do mislead your clients. A business communicates using terminology in a way that a market understands it to be. It does not change the meaning simply to suit its needs from business to business.

Do so at your own risk, and the bad reviews and reputation will follow. Up to you.

 

[oldman675]

I find this interesting.GFE girls will kiss you put there tounge down your throat but wont do bbbj?I think this is Very Interesting I guess if the guy is over 60 alot of forskin and south Asian there might be a problem but if you shower and wash well i dont get it.But just my 2 cents.

 

[PhoneGirl]

I seriously don't know where you got the idea that I get upset over the phone and lecture clients about BBFS or BBBJ's, I politley tell them that none of my girls offer it and send them on their merry way. The girls will say the same to clients when they ask for it in the session. You will never hear me say YMMV over the phone in regards to bareback services because its simply not an option at my agency.

If you're going to ask for unsafe sex practices, expect to be lectured. You've been told since middle school (when most sex-ed programs start) to always use protection. For people who are educated, have respect for their bodies and don't want the safety risk, they use condoms. For alot of SP's the request for bareback is insulting and disgusting. People who claim to be educated, you're obviously just ignorant to abandon the health risk in exchange for your own pleasure. It's you who will get herpes and i'll have no sympathy for you then. Suck it up and ask over the phone when you call or request a specific SP if they offer bareback, if they won't give you a definite answer, find someone who will give you a definite answer.