Bare-backing Escort Encounters

[Guest ncm2169]

I’ve received a disturbing report which I’ve decided to share here.

 

An online friend recently had his first-ever escort encounter. The client chose the escort after many months of research on this site and elsewhere. The escort is well known and well regarded on this site; he has lots of fans and many great Reviews.

 

The client was devastated by the experience because he discovered, after being penetrated, that the escort was not using a condom. The client saw the escort put on a condom prior to the initial insertion, and (1) naturally assumed the second time would also be safe, but (2) wasn’t in a “position” to observe the escort’s preparation for the second round, which is when the bare-backing occurred. The client found out about the absence of a condom only when the escort withdrew.

 

I’ve exchanged several emails, IM’s and phone conversations with this client, both before and after the encounter, and I have no doubt about his veracity. Simply put, he has no reason to lie. He has no interest in “outing” the escort, notwithstanding his very disappointing encounter.

 

At this point, the client is more focused on the results of upcoming STD tests than he is on writing a Review, particularly since he experienced rectal tearing in the encounter.

 

I realize this post will provoke speculation about who’s who, but it’s not my place to divulge identities and I will not do so. Rather, I pass this on as a BIG head’s up for clients who engage in anal sex, but only wish to do so safely. There have been a couple of other recent posts about escorts trying to bareback with clients (either way).

 

I make no judgment here about others’ choices. I do know there’s an alarming (IMHO) increase in bare-backing among the general population. I’d like to believe that, in hiring a well-reviewed escort, a client who wishes to be safe can do so without worry. Apparently (and very regrettably), that’s not always the case.

 

What do they say about a few bad apples and the barrel?

[+ Lucky]

Why post something like this if you are not going to name the escort? The subject has been discussed ad nauseam and we all seem to agree that the client is ultimately responsible for the safety of his own health. If there are escorts devious enough to behave as you describe, nothing is gained unless the name is put forth. Otherwise it is just hand-wringing.

[Guest ncm2169]

Well, and a cheery good mornin' to you too! :o

 

Lucky, I'm sure we all appreciate your great institutional memory here...I know I do. However, many new members are being added regularly who don't yet have the benefit of that memory.

 

And, yes, sometimes it's good just to be reminded about some things. :*

[Flower]

Despite your brush off, Lucky's comments are very valid.

 

The only value of your post would be to let others know who the escort was--otherwise, quite frankly, I doubt it's credibility and assume you're just trying to stir-up the pot. Most here needed be reminded of the risks of BB repeatedly, which is all your post amounts to in it's present form.

 

Btw, aren't you the one that has used the same line (about a "friend") in other posts? Whenever I see "a 'friend' told me" or this "happened to a 'friend'" I get suspicious.

 

It allows people to make any statement they wish with complete deniability.x(

[woodlawn]

>Why post something like this if you are not going to name the

>escort? The subject has been discussed ad nauseam and we all

>seem to agree that the client is ultimately responsible for

>the safety of his own health. If there are escorts devious

>enough to behave as you describe, nothing is gained unless the

>name is put forth. Otherwise it is just hand-wringing.

 

I agree with all of the above, especially the last two sentences. There is nothing more pointless (and more aggravating) than a post saying "I have learned that someone you all know did something you should all know about, but I'm not going to tell you who it is." What do you mean, "It's not my place" to provide the details? If you are not here to share information that could be useful to other members then why are you here?

 

In just the past few weeks we have had reports from two clients naming escorts who barebacked without permission. Can you seriously maintain that this is NOT something prospective clients need to know?

[Guest ncm2169]

Well, well, the long knives are out already, I see.

 

It's not my place to name names, because I wasn't the client. As I said, the client chooses not to out the escort, so I respect his wishes. If people object, too bad. That's the way it is.

 

Quite frankly, one reason why the client didn't make this post himself, is that he wasn't interested in getting chewed up and spit out here after getting screwed in his first escort experience.

 

I, on the other hand, really don't care if I, or my credibility, or my sincerity, or my motivation are attacked, nor who does it.

 

My post was a heads up to take extra precautions. If only one client gets the message, my post will have served its purpose. :7

[Boston Guy]

This is my take on this subject:

 

(1) I consider having unprotected sex with someone -- without that person's knowledge and consent -- to be far worse than stealing from a person.

 

(2) If I had an escort steal from me, I'd report it here AND name names.

 

(3) If I had an escort even attempt to have unprotected sex with me, much less do so without my consent or knowledge, I would report it here AND name names.

 

There are at least two power relationships going on in the event that you have reported, and possibly a third:

 

(a) The emotional power relationship. Your friend was seeing an escort for the first time. He was undoubtedly nervous and the escort, through his experience, had the upper hand.

 

(b) The escort was physically in control at the moment in question and so literally had power over the client. Not only this, the client couldn't watch the escort.

 

© Likely but not certain: the escort may well have been younger, cuter, stronger, etc. than the client, conferring additional advantage to the escort.

 

In this type of situation, the adult in the power position has a responsibility to act reasonably and responsibly, even though this does not deny the responsibility of the other person to also take an active role in things like safe sex.

 

We hear all the time from escorts who believe that they are responsible professionals and who want to be treated and compensated as such. I have no problem with that. But with professionalism comes responsibility. Forcing someone against their knowledge to have unprotected anal sex as a bottom is potentially the same as killing that person. It should never be accepted as reasonable behavior or behavior that can be condoned or overlooked.

 

The fact that this happened to a friend of yours and not you allows you to take the stance that you don't want to name names and instead simply want to warn people again. On the surface, that's reasonable and you are to be commended for even bringing the subject up.

 

However, if the escort stole your friend's wallet, would you report that here? If not, why not? If an escort steals a wallet, both he and the client know what happened. I guess an argument could be made that one doesn't want potential liability for libel but other than that, I'm not sure I see a strong case for staying quite.

 

Going back to the escort who forces the client unknowingly to have unprotected anal sex with him, I see that behavior as so egregious and so dangerous that I would feel compelled to name the escort. Using your analogy above, if even one person is saved from being exposed to HIV by this person, that's reason enough. Anyone who has seen people die from AIDS shouldn't have any doubt about that.

 

The fact that the escort is a well-known escort here makes the case for reporting the incident even stronger, I think, because it makes it all the more likely that the escort is successful and seeing many clients. There's no reason to believe that the escort acted any differently with your friend than with any other client.

 

Were I in your shoes, I would feel a strong moral compulsion to expose the escort and let the chips fall where they will. Doing so won't harm your friend -- he and the escort both already know what happened -- but could save the lives of others.

 

BG

[+ Lucky]

"Well, well, the long knives are out already, I see.

 

It's not my place to name names, because I wasn't the client. As I said, the client chooses not to out the escort, so I respect his wishes. If people object, too bad. That's the way it is."

 

No, they are not. Unless you want to make this post of practical value by naming the escort, it is merely second-hand gossip. At least if you name the escort, he has the chance to respond, we have the chance to decide. We are not out to knife you, but your post!!! So don't take it so personally! And, BTW, good afternoon! How are ya?

[Guest ncm2169]

BG, thank you for your very well-reasoned and reasonable post.

 

I will not name names because I wasn't the client, I wasn't there, and I do not have firsthand knowledge of the situation. Notwithstanding that, I repeat that I have total confidence that I'm being told the truth by the client. I am simply trying to do the best I can with the information I have.

 

The client views this Board regularly, and I am sure he will read this thread. Should he change his mind, he's free to make any disclosures any time that he wishes. Right now, however, he's understandably preoccupied with his own personal situation.

 

Finally, I agree 100% with your characterization of the balance of power in this kind of escort/client situation. It's nice to read a rational analysis.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

BG,

 

I agree with argument for coming forth but for the primary individual involved. Having third parties make accusations on an anonymous board is a slippery slope and invitation for stalkers to engage in vendettas and even the more benign to engage in abuse, intentional or not. There is really no way for one to defend himself other than to post he didn't do it -- not even 'he said - he said' rather 'someone told me - he said'. In the past HB has attempted to look into some of these cases. How can anyone investigate if they run into the wall of a third party unwilling identify the primary party.

 

I'm on record that the MC is an appropriate forum for posting negative info about escorts but IMO only by primaries not third parties. Often these issues turn on the credibility of the parties. Where is the credibility when the accuser stands behid a curtain, in this case a third party. The potential for abuse is just too great.

 

The old maxim... "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to falsely imprison one innocent man" comes to mind. I'm sure several will take difference. But the fact is, I identify with the falsely accused innocent man -- there but for the grace of God go I. I imagine that most of us do.

[marc anthony]

>

>I'm on record that the MC is an appropriate forum for posting

>negative info about escorts but IMO only by primaries not

>third parties. Often these issues turn on the credibility of

>the parties. Where is the credibility when the accuser stands

>behid a curtain, in this case a third party. The potential

>for abuse is just too great.

>

>The old maxim... "it is better to let ten guilty men go free

>than to falsely imprison one innocent man" comes to mind. I'm

>sure several will take difference. But the fact is, I

>identify with the falsely accused innocent man -- there but

>for the grace of God go I. I imagine that most of us do.

 

Well said, TY. I was thinking how I would respond to the direction this thread was taking... and then you appeared. I can now move on.

 

[woodlawn]

>"Well, well, the long knives are out already, I see.

 

What did you expect? Unless you are a complete idiot, you must have known that at least some posters would criticize your decision to make a serious accusation without adding the kind of information that would give it practical value to those who read it. As Lucky points out below, without that information it is nothing more that a piece of titillating gossip.

 

>It's not my place to name names, because I wasn't the client.

>As I said, the client chooses not to out the escort, so I

>respect his wishes. If people object, too bad. That's the way

>it is."

 

What "wishes" are you respecting? You know quite well that the moderators will not allow the posting of real names here, so the client's privacy is in no danger of being violated even should the escort in question respond by trying to identify the client in that way. I fail to see what the client has to lose if you or he identifies the escort. And if there is anything to lose, it certainly does not stack up against the risk that future clients of this escort will be taking because you prefer to remain silent. Congratulations.

 

 

>No, they are not. Unless you want to make this post of

>practical value by naming the escort, it is merely second-hand

>gossip. At least if you name the escort, he has the chance to

>respond, we have the chance to decide.

 

Kudos to Lucky for saying what BG said in about one quarter of the space. Here's what I say: this website is the only place I know where clients have a chance to get the kind of information about escorts that can save them a lot of wasted time, a lot of wasted money or in this case save them from a serious risk to their health. You devoted paragraph after paragraph in another thread to wondering whether Johann is really 21 or 24, whether he is really Czech or Swedish. But when you have information that could really help someone, you refuse to divulge it. There is something seriously wrong with your priorities.

[Uncle Bill]

As some of you might have figured out from prior postings, I know NCM2169 about as well as you can without actually meeting (we've emailed extensively over a great deal of time, shared some of the same escorts, had 3-way conversations with those escorts and other clients, etc.). He's totally legit and an honest/honorable guy.

 

He shared his thoughts with me prior to actually posting, and I encouraged him to go ahead with it as he did -- no names, etc., strictly as yet another reminder to those of us who let our dicks (or whatever) overrule our brains (and I must admit that I occasionally fall victim to that). Whether all users here value this sort of warning or not, he did it with the best of intentions and disclosed as much information as he could without violating confidences shared with him by another client. The bottom line is that clients need to make their safety requirements clear to the escorts, to carefully screen escorts based on those requirements, and to stay aware of what's happening during a session. That won't avoid all problems, but it will help.

 

Based on my own inquiries of the poster, the client appears legit and any specific identification of the escort would potentially have ramifications for the client that he's apparently not willing at this point to face (he's facing enough ramifications right now). Both NCM and I value the candid on-line/phone relationships that we have with other clients (and escorts too), and we aren't going to betray trusts.

 

Let's talk about some hypotheticals, though. If the escort was named, and if he is one with a high stature here, there would be nothing but scorn and ridicule for the person naming the escort, although the anti-escort group would jump in to trash the escort, and this site's management would feel compelled to jump in on the escort's side (neither group knowing whether the escort actually did the deed or not). We've seen it all before. And what do you think the escort's response will be? Do you think that he'd actually admit doing it if indeed he did? (Remember, we're not talking about one of those stupid guys who doesn't know this board, hasn't posted here before, and chooses for his first post to be an "I did it because the client was an asshole to me" comment.) And what if the client actually is lying? While I don't personally believe that to be the case, naming the escort in that case would unfairly attack the escort's integrity and damage his ability to make a living, perhaps severely. Only the person that this actually happened to can or should report the name -- and I truly hope that he does. Otherwise, the specifics of the situation are purely hearsay, which is one of the reasons that NCM declined to provide such details to any of us.

 

OK, I know that I'll get slammed for the above by many, so go at it. I won't be responding further to this thread as I've said all I had to say.

[Guest ncm2169]

Well, Woodlawn, with all due respect, unless you are a complete idiot, you've overlooked my twice stated reason for my post: to give a heads up to clients that this sort of thing can happen, even with well-reviewed escorts. And, I make absolutely no apologies for that.

[woodlawn]

R: Bare-backing Escort Encounters

 

>The bottom line is that clients need to make their

>safety requirements clear to the escorts, to carefully screen

>escorts based on those requirements, and to stay aware of

>what's happening during a session. That won't avoid all

>problems, but it will help.

 

Exactly how is this advice going to help anyone? First, if you and your pal refuse to tell us which escorts present this sort of problem, how are we supposed to "carefully screen escorts based on" this issue? Second, if you are bottoming and if you see the escort put on a condom before beginning, what else are you supposed to do to "stay aware of what's happening during a session"? You can either choose a position from which you can watch the escort continuously, or . . . what? Hold a mirror in front of your face until he's done?

 

 

>any specific identification of the escort would

>potentially have ramifications for the client that he's

>apparently not willing at this point to face

 

Like what? Are you suggesting the escort would retaliate against him in some way? And you're satisfied NOT to warn the rest of us about someone who would do that? Great.

 

>Let's talk about some hypotheticals, though. If the escort

>was named, and if he is one with a high stature here, there

>would be nothing but scorn and ridicule for the person naming

>the escort, although the anti-escort group would jump in to

>trash the escort, and this site's management would feel

>compelled to jump in on the escort's side (neither group

>knowing whether the escort actually did the deed or not).

>We've seen it all before. And what do you think the escort's

>response will be? Do you think that he'd actually admit doing

>it if indeed he did?

 

I can't disagree with what you say above -- it's a sad commentary on how limited the usefulness of this website really is for clients who want to find out about problem escorts in some way OTHER THAN hiring them themselves.

[Boston Guy]

Sorry, TY, but I can't agree in this instance.

 

Your points are well-taken but for me it comes down to a matter of risk and danger. Let me try a different hypothetical situation.

 

Suppose you were talking to a client that you knew and trusted. He told that he had an encounter with an escort who pulled out a gun and threatened him with it and then left. Your friend didn't want to report it here for personal reasons. Would you report it? Would you consider the potential danger to other clients great enough to overcome the potential harm to an escort's known "persona"?

 

If no, what if the escort had actually fired the gun into the ceiling, frightening the client. Would you report it then?

 

If not, then are there no circumstances where you would feel so strongly about the danger to other potential clients that you would feel compelled to report the incident?

 

I think that one has to decide if the client who doesn't want to come forward is credible or not. If one cannot decide that he is, them I'd be tempted to say nothing. If, however, one decides that the client is credible and the report likely, then at what point does potential danger to other clients outweigh the harm to an "innocent man"?

 

I've lost dozens and dozens of close friends to HIV. I don't take it or its danger lightly. As far as I'm concerned, an escort who has unprotected sex with an unknowing client -- and especially an escort who had just previously used a condom while the client was watching -- might just as well be playing traditional Russian roulette with the client.

 

Escorts need to act professionally if they want to be taken professionally. The kind of behavior described here is not professional, it's reprehensible and it doesn't deserve protection.

 

I do not blame the posters here for taking the stances they do and I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind; this the kind of issue that each man must decide for himself and, unlike some of the others, I think there is real value in simply bringing up the issue again.

 

But if it was me, I'd be asking myself a simple question: what if I don't say anything and this guy goes out does the same thing this weekend and an innocent man gets infected with HIV? What if he does it to two guys or three guys? At what point does the danger to others outweigh either the potential harm to an escort who has been falsely accused or risking the wrath of posters here who will will throw thunderbolts and lightening?

 

I understand it's a slippery slope and those are always tricky. But the mere fact that it is a slippery slope doesn't mean that nothing can or should be done.

 

BG

[Rick Munroe]

> (3) If I had an escort even attempt to have unprotected sex

>with me, much less do so without my consent or knowledge, I

>would report it here AND name names.

 

What about when a client tries to bareback an escort? Do we all think that the client should be "outed" & identified here as well? In my experience (and Derek's), as someone who doesn't bareback whether top or bottom, it's much more common to encounter clients (tops & bottoms) who want/try to (it's never happened to me because I'm wise to tricks like "let me just rub it in your crack; I promise I won't slip it in"), but we never seem to hear about it here on the message center (because only a handful out of thousands of professional escorts post, and because the ones who post know we must always be "discreet"). You mention an imbalance of power in the escort/client relationship, but you don't take into consideration that it exists both ways. How many twink escorts are hired by guys who could easily overpower them? How many clients exert power over an escort through the promise of $ and "more where that came from"?

 

On a related note, I'm continually annoyed by the perpetual posts about "no show" escorts, too. In my case, and for most of the escorts I know, it's the opposite situation that is the norm. Even after 3 years of doing this, I still get fooled by guys who make me think the whole thing is real, but then they either don't show up (we get an email later about a "family emergency"...that's a popular one) or the address I go to doesn't exist. Fun! x(

 

Another thing: if you don't want to bareback, then it's your responsibility, whether you're a client or an escort or neither, to make sure that it doesn't happen. I rarely get fucked but when I do, I try to be the one to put the condom on the guy (preferably my own condom, so I know it's fresh & not past its expiration, doesn't contain nonoxynol-9, etc.) and I either watch it go in if I'm on my back, or I reach back & feel if I'm on all fours. If it slips out or we change positions, I reach back & check again. I would think that that's common sense for someone who's cautious, but if it isn't (obviously it isn't), then anyone who bottoms, who has read this post, and who doesn't want to be barebacked, should start doing it that way.

[Guest Derek Ross]

>Only

>the person that this actually happened to can or should report

>the name -- and I truly hope that he does. Otherwise, the

>specifics of the situation are purely hearsay

 

You're right, and an escort review would be the fair and proper way to do that. This way there can be an attempt at verification though HB's review process. The client can have his say, the escort can have his, and all who read can form their own opinions from the information provided.

[Guest drock56]

> an innocent man gets infected with

>HIV?

>

I'm curious in what sense it makes sense to call

someone hiring an escort "innocent"? I've been a

hustler and I've hired them; I certainly never

thought of myself (in either role) as innocent.

 

I would think that either role carries an inherent

risk and that the wise person would be looking out for

their own interests at all times.

[Guest Merlin]

I hope that you and your friend will reconsider your decision not to reveal, if it turns out that your client has been infected. No need to alarm him more than he is, but an escort who BBs even as a top, has a higher probabilty than otherwise of being positive. If he no longer fears infection, we can guess why. If he came in your friend, or secreted pre-cum, and an anal tear existed, your friend has good reason for his alarm. All this is probably known to him and no good can be served by discussing it at this point. But if our worst fears are realized, then I think your friend, and you, have a duty to disclose his name here. More importantly, your friend should report it to the police. In most, or all states, it is a serious crime, and he must, at all costs be stopped. With clients it is different only in that most clients do not use real names (I assume) and telling us that client "Bill" or "John" is not helpful. And, as someone suggested above, real names are not allowed here.

[Boston Guy]

Rick, your post of full of good sense.

 

I totally agree that the power position in the roles of escort and client can go either way; in this situation, it seemed to be the escort who was in the position of having the power.

 

In terms of clients, I see no ethical or moral difference regarding trying to trick someone into having unsafe sex. It's reprehensible no matter who does it. I most certainly am not judging escorts as a class, simply the one individual in question.

 

Regarding no-shows, I feel sorry for people who have so little consideration for others to pull these kinds of stunts. They're missing some rather crucial things about interpersonal relationships. I travel frequently and often see people abusing waiters and waitresses, flight attendents -- any of the myriad people who are working in service positions in airports, restaurants and hotels, trying to make a living. The people who need to take out their anger or frustration on others or who make appointments and don't show up are pitiful. They've evidently never learned how much more fun and interesting it is to treat everyone nicely, especially those who seem to have a chip on their shoulder.

 

But I'm not an escort and I cannot post from an escort's point of view. I wish more escorts did post here but I don't think it's generally a wise thing for escorts to do because I think it poses more risks for somemone's business than advantages. You are a good example of the few who have made it work.

 

I regret that more don't post. I well remember back a few years ago when more escorts were posting. I found it very interesting and learned quite a bit from those posts. Unfortunately, there were too many people here who needed to tear the escorts down and ruin it for everyone. I never could understand why a middle-aged guy would need or want to tear down a younger guy (especially one who was just starting out) just to make himself feel good or look smart or important.

 

Oh, well.

 

BG

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

A lynching for the greater good?

 

>Sorry, TY, but I can't agree in this instance.

>

>

Reasonable men may disagree.

 

>Your points are well-taken but for me it comes down to a

>matter of risk and danger.

 

I do agree and will pursue this line with your own example.

 

>

>Suppose you were talking to a client that you knew and

>trusted. He told that he had an encounter with an escort who

>pulled out a gun and threatened him with it and then left.

>Your friend didn't want to report it here for personal

>reasons. Would you report it? Would you consider the

>potential danger to other clients great enough to overcome the

>potential harm to an escort's known "persona"?

>

>If no, what if the escort had actually fired the gun into the

>ceiling, frightening the client. Would you report it then?

>

 

Let me turn this question around, in both instances. Would you feel in either circumstance that the risk outweighs the client's confidentiality? If so then the proper choice is to inform the police and name names -- everybody involved. Not to do so would be socially negligent IMO. The police are unlikely to take any action without that piece of information. Just as the risk you pose outweighs the potential impact of a false charge on the escort it also outweighs the potential impact on the client of identification. After all, we are talking a potential life-threatening situation. Your posed situation is more conventional with respect to custom and the current state of juris prudence. Thus the seemingly more apparent black-and-white issue.

 

I also accept your characterization of this incident as potentially life threatening and certainly wreckless indifference or negligent assault. And our courts and laws are catching up on this as an assault. Thus if names are to be named then name them all. Overriding concerns that you eloquently voice demand no less IMO.

 

There can be no just resolution of this issue by shielding one of the particpants, only a lynching. There are two sides to every story and perceptions vary by people observing or participating in the same event. The only way to get to the bottom of it through an investigation with cross examination by an impartial party. That requires not only the defendant but the accuser be known to the investigator. So I see your impassioned stance as the question: Is a lynching justified based soley on the risk that it might be true, knowing also that we have no way to ascertain the veracity?

 

>But if it was me, I'd be asking myself a simple question:

>what if I don't say anything and this guy goes out does the

>same thing this weekend and an innocent man gets infected with

>HIV?

 

I sympathize with you and the answer is clear -- name names.

 

>At what

>point does the danger to others outweigh either the potential

>harm to an escort who has been falsely accused or risking the

>wrath of posters here who will will throw thunderbolts and

>lightening?

 

I think you are leaving a piece out of the equation. At what point does the danger to others outweigh the potential harm to the client?

 

Let me pose another not uncommon example. At what

point does the danger to others outweigh the potential harm to an a man that loses his job because he was falsely accused of domestic abuse -- spousal or child? Does the job of a well-known escort, that over years has developed a very successful image and reputation forming his basis for a living, count less than the job a clerk, truck driver, white collar type or pro-sports 'star'. (I think the pro-sports star analogy is especially apt in a number of ways.)

 

As for...

 

>wrath of posters here who will will throw thunderbolts and

>lightening?

 

That depends on whose ox is being gored. I suspect that in most cases the impact on the escort is much greater than the impact on the anonymous screen name contacted for a discrete follow-up by a sensitive but impartial investigator.

 

>I understand it's a slippery slope and those are always

>tricky. But the mere fact that it is a slippery slope doesn't

>mean that nothing can or should be done.

>

I agree. But caution is dictated because of the often unforseen and unintended consequences accompanying the slippery slide.

 

The easy questions are black and white. The hard ones are those that attempt to balance two or more fundamental principles in some grave issue, such as this one does. Then it doesn't come down to what is right or wrong but what principle do we devalue if we are well-served, or what person do we disenfranchise: blacks, women, gays, the poor or mentally infirm or possibly white males on occasion. Or possibly the one we sacrifice for the greater good. Again, there but for the grace of God go I...

 

It wouldn't take much of a leap for me to argue your 'greater good' position. It is tempting and compelling but it is not just IMO. Argument sometimes can be made for its supremacy but I don't think it has been made in this case unless the sacrifices are equally shared among the parties.

[jasoncarter_dfw]

Well, after reading this story, I'm very sorry your friend was subjected to that experience w/ an escort. The escort was completely wrong in what he did. It is my opinion, as an escort, that it is completely irresponsible for a sex worker to "bareback" with a client in this day and age. I know that I personally want to enjoy my life to it's fullest and know that barebacking would possibly have consequences on my life, and my partner's life, that I do not want. I even refuse to see clients that ask me if I bareback, because it tells me that they most likely bareback with others. They would put me at more risk than with someone that plays safe. Safe sex can be just as hot, passionate and intense as sex without condoms...it's the attitude that matters!

 

- Jason Carter - Dallas, TX

- jason@sexyjasoncarter.com

- http://www.sexyjasoncarter.com

[Boston Guy]

RE: A lynching for the greater good?

 

TY:

 

Nicely put.

 

I could see myself arguing for your position at a dinner table; I don't think we disagree much here and the questions of justice that you raise are good ones and they are troubling.

 

To address one of your points, I do think that we should consider the potential harm to an escort's job seriously. The fact that escorts work under false names and could theoretically restart again under a new name doesn't diminish the potential for harm. We lose a lot of our humanity if we simply dismiss that.

 

But: the level of harm to the escort is potentially far less serious than the possible harm to the client, assuming that the escort is HIV+ or even potentially HIV+ (or carries some other STD). So there's a question of "greater harm" here and it calls for drawing lines in the sand. Where the line is drawn is the question.

 

This situation is also muddied by the refusal of the actual client to comment. If the client came forward, even under their own false persona, I would strongly urge him to name the escort, if he was sure that the facts he was reporting were true. The escort could rebut them if he wanted and everyone could judge for themselves where the truth of the matter was.

 

And what of the escort falsely accused, you ask? What would prevent someone from coming forward and saying this about any escort they were upset about? The answer is nothing at all, except credibility.

 

If you posted here that this happened to you and the escort was a known person here who said it wasn't so, I'd probably believe you because you have established great credibility here. If the client was a "first-time poster" who said Rick Munroe was at fault and RM disagreed, I'd be inclined to believe Rick, again because he has established a history of credibility here. It's no different than what happens at the town square.

 

We know that lots of guys like to bareback and we know that society frowns on it right now. We've heard over and over about guys who try to trick other guys into barebacking. It's not much of a stretch to believe that there are escorts out there who are doing the same thing with their clients and if the clients are not aware of it, an unscrupulous escort could easily infect many clients.

 

That's not something I'd be happy to hear about.

 

BG

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: A lynching for the greater good?

 

BG,

 

>I don't think we disagree much here ...

 

I suspect our hearts and consciences are far closer than a quick read of our exchange might indicate to a stranger. Often the tipping margin is small when attempting to balance two competing fundamentally important priciples.

 

>If the client came forward, even under

>their own false persona, I would strongly urge him to name the

>escort, if he was sure that the facts he was reporting were

>true. The escort could rebut them if he wanted and everyone

>could judge for themselves where the truth of the matter was.

>

 

I agree and would join you in this appeal. However, this discussion is more of an academic exercise in that, if my interpretation of recent events is correct, such posts have been deemed not appropriate for this forum.

 

>If you posted here that this happened to you and the escort

>was a known person here who said it wasn't so, I'd probably

>believe you because you have established great credibility

>here. If the client was a "first-time poster" who said Rick

>Munroe was at fault and RM disagreed, I'd be inclined to

>believe Rick, again because he has established a history of

>credibility here. It's no different than what happens at the

>town square.

 

I'd probably thank you for the vote of confidence. I agree that this is likely to come down to credibility. But to judge credibility you need the credibility of both the accused and the accuser. This is probably one reason why the client doesn't want to come forward because the escort is well known presumably with established credibility. So whatever the truth, that credbility and the escort friendly familiarity with the board would have to be overcome.

 

>It's not much of a stretch to believe that there are escorts out

>there who are doing the same thing with their clients and if

>the clients are not aware of it, an unscrupulous escort could

>easily infect many clients.

 

 

I agree it's no stretch at all. I'm easily persuaded that there are unscrupulous escorts and civilians who engage in this deceptive practice. I think they ought to be prosecuted.