Do many escorts actually offer BB?

[Anais]

I have known some girls who never advertised it but did offer it to certain regulars.

And I have many clients who tell me the same, which is why I assume everyone has unprotected sex and I just get on with my sex work regardless AND enjoy it.

I do fantasise about BB sex; it gets me off in bookings 

[chocoholicgirl]

I actually think there's an interesting discussion to be had about BB, but it usually descends into pearl-clutching hysteria. I, personally, do feel OWO is less risky in terms of the overall transmission of STIs because it's less likely to involve syphilis, HIV, or genital herpes and warts.

My main issue with escorts who routinely offer BB is that even if they go for a full STI screen every week, they're still more likely to catch something and thus pass it on.
And re. clients, bug chasers are certainly a worry. Plus them not going for screening.

In all fairness consenting adults are entitled to do what they like. But this is my issue too. You are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted and even a daily STI screen would not stop you catching something that using protection might have avoided. It's also useless to a certain degree due to the amount of STI's that take weeks / months to show up. If you are fortunate to have a negative test you may not be so lucky next time.

I personally would never offer it for these reasons but if girls want to, and guys are happy to do it, that's their risk to take.

[sweetmilf]

I don't think that anybody who values their autonomy and privacy wants this industry regulated at all in the sense of imposing laws and restrictions that treat sex workers differently to other workers, which is why sex worker groups, academics who have done proper research among sex workers and the support organisations who actually listen to us support decriminalisation and not legalisation (which comes with state interference as with the German laws, although that's nothing to do with this thread).

Unwanted pregnancy, STIs and all the other difficult circumstances mentioned are not exclusive to sex work, and unless you're going to outlaw unprotected sex between everybody just in case, they're not going to go away. Making something illegal doesn't deter people who are already criminals so will make no difference to anybody who is already being exploited or forced into providing services they don't want to - it'll just make them harder to find and help.

As for independents who do bareback occasionally and/or with trusted regulars, what the post above basically says is that because these women are doing something you would never do, they are unable to make decisions for themselves so they must be 'forced'? Seriously?

I don't phrase things very well, I'm badly dyslexic. I never said things "should" be better regulated as such.  That's not the thread is about.    I don't know enough about German laws but I was just discussing the possible background as to how the new legislation came about, someone else might come in and could add more accurate info.  Amy, everyone's situation is quite different.  I would not go into my personal reasons why I would prefer to avoid unsafe sex, but given my longstanding "experience" in this industry, it does not take a rocket science to know some other women might consent to unsafe practice for personal reasons, debts to clear, bills to pay, small children to feed, or other desperate reasons.  When regulars wanting certain service or move on, I guess some consent to the services, given the pressure.  Maybe, or quite likely, I didn't phrase it well, but when someone says, women "offer it on the sly", it sounds as if someone is happy to do it for extra cash, given the opportunity, but it may be far more complicated than that. These women may not want to do it, but losing regular incomes may mean their small children starving, problem keeping the roof over their family etc. That sort of thing.

I'm sure some escorts do it without being forced but it doesn't surprise me if there are other situations, yes, really, I don't mean to offend, though.   
 

[RKitten]

I don't think that anybody who values their autonomy and privacy wants this industry regulated at all in the sense of imposing laws and restrictions that treat sex workers differently to other workers, which is why sex worker groups, academics who have done proper research among sex workers and the support organisations who actually listen to us support decriminalisation and not legalisation (which comes with state interference as with the German laws, although that's nothing to do with this thread).

Unwanted pregnancy, STIs and all the other difficult circumstances mentioned are not exclusive to sex work, and unless you're going to outlaw unprotected sex between everybody just in case, they're not going to go away. Making something illegal doesn't deter people who are already criminals so will make no difference to anybody who is already being exploited or forced into providing services they don't want to - it'll just make them harder to find and help.

As for independents who do bareback occasionally and/or with trusted regulars, what the post above basically says is that because these women are doing something you would never do, they are unable to make decisions for themselves so they must be 'forced'? Seriously?

Along with Germany, New Zealand also has barebaking made illegal, and health workers do visit independents and brothels. In the Netherlands removing a condom during sex without explicit consent turns it into rape. I don't think this is a bad thing, or something we should frown on. Many countries have or are bring in laws against people knowingly sleeping with others when they have an STD (the UK is one of them, assault and GBH are usually what they fall under for SWs and civvies alike).

Maybe it's working predominately with bdsm clients, but affirmative consent is a massive thing on both sides. Not to say some don't try and push it, but they get a short sharp jab from my self defence training.

When it comes down to it, bareback is much higher risk that oral without a condom. I'm a scientist by day and have worked in STD research. The papers back this up (even more surprising oral HPV actually decreases the fatality of nose and throat cancers). In the same breath, HIV transfer is much lower than most people realise (individuals can conceive with someone who is HIV positive without contracting it, surprising but true). The biggest risk is with chlamydia and gonorrhea (higher transmission rates).

I don't judge anyone who does bareback, the girls in my area I know who do, I know why they do: money. They can get an extra twenty quid dropping the condom. None of them do it because they really want to, but they have bills to pay. I get that, I got into escorting to pay off debts. And man did I get some insane offers to do bareback (10K for a weekend), but I weighed it up against the risks. I'll chance someone having G or C or herpes for oral, facials I'm always certain to close my eyes and clean up asap (orbital herpes can cause blindness).

Is there a price that would make me run the risk? Not what 99.99999999% of clients are offering. But several mill and maybe I'll take a roll of that dice (paid in advance obviously).

[amy]

Along with Germany, New Zealand also has barebaking made illegal, and health workers do visit independents and brothels. In the Netherlands removing a condom during sex without explicit consent turns it into rape. I don't think this is a bad thing, or something we should frown on. Many countries have or are bring in laws against people knowingly sleeping with others when they have an STD (the UK is one of them, assault and GBH are usually what they fall under for SWs and civvies alike).

Maybe it's working predominately with bdsm clients, but affirmative consent is a massive thing on both sides. Not to say some don't try and push it, but they get a short sharp jab from my self defence training.

When it comes down to it, bareback is much higher risk that oral without a condom. I'm a scientist by day and have worked in STD research. The papers back this up (even more surprising oral HPV actually decreases the fatality of nose and throat cancers). In the same breath, HIV transfer is much lower than most people realise (individuals can conceive with someone who is HIV positive without contracting it, surprising but true). The biggest risk is with chlamydia and gonorrhea (higher transmission rates).

Yes, there isn't anything in this paragraph I didn't already know and I don't think I said anywhere that I thought OWO and unprotected penetration carried the same level of risk. What I was trying to say (and obviously not very effectively) was that whilst everybody can and likely already does think unprotected sex is something they wish people wouldn't do, there's a hell of a leap between that and the state telling them they can't, especially when it's restricted to particular groups of people in particular situations and not others.

I agree that people engaging in unprotected sex results in STIs being passed on, but the chances of them being passed on to people who only offer covered services is tiny. I don't offer OWO or RO, but if I did then I can't complain if I do catch something when I could easily have taken precautions to prevent it and I didn't. Nor can I blame either the punter who gave me it or the person who gave it to him, because as an adult my health is my responsibility and nobody elses - likewise if I want to smoke, drink alcohol or ride a motorcycle, all of which I can legally do and which could potentially harm others.

Making people aware of their health and potential threats to it as well as providing accessible protection so that they're in a position to decide for themselves what level of risk they're prepared to take would be my  choice and I think the fact that both of these things are fairly readily available here is a big part of the reason that relatively few people here offer unprotected penetration.

[English Green]

Doing bareback is playing with fire but it is a choice at the end of the day it is not something i would ever want to do and most ladies look down on it and judge others for offering it to punters openly or on the sly but i say this in the best possible nicest way without trying to cause anyone offence but OWO and CIM is still risky to catch infections and many have caught infections and spread them from doing those services so my question is is it a little hypocritical after all you can catch many of the infections from oral without and doing bareback.
I remember 1 woman i knew of few years back she used to offer OWO CIM snowballing etc and she found out 1 sex worker she knew of had done bareback with a regular she was going around calling her a dirty skank filthy diseased whore who everyone should know not to book plus saying it is women like her that make it risky for us to catch things...well i thought she went too far trying to ruin her rep when she offered services that can easily invite STDs and she caught 1 herself several months after because of her services she offers it is just a little double standards with all her ranting and trying to ruin another sex workers living.

[CurlsnCurves]

No. I don't offer it or list as offering it but I do it with one guy I've known for many years who has become a friend and far more than just 'a punter' and he never does it with anyone else. We both trust each other implicitly. I wouldn't do it with anyone else.

[sweetmilf]

I used to have "sex is protected only" blah blah blah, but I deleted it, as it seems to attract more chancers, thinking, "she should be clean, then".   I would be curious, though.  It seems loads of discussion on the new German laws, one quick google showed.

[ana30]

I used to have "sex is protected only" blah blah blah, but I deleted it, as it seems to attract more chancers, thinking, "she should be clean, then".   I would be curious, though.  It seems loads of discussion on the new German laws, one quick google showed.

What they're making illegal is the advertising of BB services and not the actual act of having sex without a condom (for this last thing they would need to put a policeman in a bedroom everytime two people have sex). Of course everyone in their private life i free to do whatever they wish, but you cannot advertise it (at least in Germany as per the new laws). I don't think trying to curb disease is such an "outrageous" measure (?).

I do have a problem though with other parts of this new german laws towards sex workers, but that's a whole other thread.

[SuperCheese]

I disagree with the law, as it it presented anyway. What's the point in shoving sexual services 'under the table'? It just makes it harder for escorts who offer it get help and forces them to be dishonest to health services.

To stay on the original topic, I suppose I can see the attraction. It does feel quite naughty and risky to have bb with a complete stranger. I guess what makes it dangerous, also makes it 'exciting'.

[ana30]

I disagree with the law, as it it presented anyway. What's the point in shoving sexual services 'under the table'? It just makes it harder for escorts who offer it get help and forces them to be dishonest to health services.

I highly doubt a girl telling her GP in Germany she offers BB will get arrested, but like you say: "She is likely to lie for fear of". On the other hand I know many sex workers here in the UK who won't tell their gum clinic they have BB services for fear of being sermoned by the nurses.

[ana30]

To stay on the original topic, I suppose I can see the attraction. It does feel quite naughty and risky to have bb with a complete stranger. I guess what makes it dangerous, also makes it 'exciting'.

Super cheese cake, nobody likes to use condoms, they are expensive, uncomfortable and take a lot of pleasure from the sex act (specially for guys). Like an ex once told me: " using condoms for sex is like eating a pizza with the box".

[SuperCheese]

I understand the importance of wrapping it up, but the best way to tackle judgement is trying to put yourself in someone else's position. It's better for people to feel that they can be open, as STI checks are paramount.

By the way, it's not cheese cake, it's from the Cheestring advert.

[sweetmilf]

What they're making illegal is the advertising of BB services and not the actual act of having sex without a condom (for this last thing they would need to put a policeman in a bedroom everytime two people have sex). Of course everyone in their private life i free to do whatever they wish, but you cannot advertise it (at least in Germany as per the new laws). I don't think trying to curb disease is such an "outrageous" measure (?).

I do have a problem though with other parts of this new german laws towards sex workers, but that's a whole other thread.

Thank you, Ana.  One thing I know that they have the state-run brothels punters visit from all over the world, so the reality there is not exactly the same here by the look of it.   I have seen a post by someone commented on "German bareback whore House".  I was a little too tired to look.  Not particularly interested, either.

[VickiV]

Hi, new here, so I hope its ok to put in my 2 cents. I offer BB to a few of my regulars that I know well and get along with great. It is not something I'd ever advertise though, but to each their own.